Columbus City Council Hearing: Right of Way COA Process (2025-12-01)
Columbus City Council Hearing: Right of Way COA Process (2025-12-01)
On December 1, 2025, the Columbus City Council held a public hearing to discuss proposed amendments to the Columbus City Code regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process for work performed by the city within the public right of way. The legislation seeks to clarify that the city is not required to obtain a COA from historic commissions (such as the German Village Commission) for work in the right of way, a move prompted by a court-ordered preliminary injunction stemming from a lawsuit filed by the German Village Society. The council emphasized the dual mandate of preserving historic character and maintaining safe, accessible public infrastructure, acknowledging the complexity of balancing these goals. The hearing featured presentations from city legal counsel, the Department of Public Service, and the Planning Division, followed by extensive public testimony.
Consent Calendar
- No routine approvals or unanimous actions were recorded in this specific transcript segment; the meeting proceeded directly to hearing items.
Public Comments & Testimony
Support for the Legislation / Emphasis on Accessibility and Speed:
- Robert Jackson: Expressed full support for ADA compliance and accessibility, stating he is "100% committed to historical preservation and restoration" but arguing that the lawsuit claims of "irreparable harm" lack objective evidence. He emphasized that the ADA mandates safety features to prevent accidents for all users and noted that the current legal hold effectively excludes people with disabilities from neighborhood events for up to 18 months.
- Steve Holt: As an Orientation Mobility Specialist with Pilot Dogs, stated he has witnessed individuals feel "trapped" in their homes due to lack of curb cuts. He expressed strong support for making ramps possible so those with disabilities can travel safely and independently.
- Brian Zolo: A student of Steve Holt and a resident with hearing aids, shared personal challenges navigating intersections due to traffic noise and signal placement, and expressed a desire to work with the city to improve safety for pedestrians.
- Nicole Carter: As a mom of an autistic child and a resident using a mobility scooter, stated that curb ramps are "lifelines," not cosmetic. She argued that accessibility and history are not in conflict and that delaying work forces people into unsafe conditions.
- Janae Miller: Spoke as a person with visual impairments, describing the danger of uneven sidewalks and the lack of detectable warnings. She characterized the opposition to the change as "vanity" regarding aesthetics over safety, asserting that safety must come first.
- Belinda Spinosi: A disability advocate and Victorian Village resident, argued that historic bricks and sandstone curbs are effectively imprisoning seniors and those with disabilities. She stated that the current situation prevents people from participating in community life and urged the council to prioritize humanity over aesthetics.
- Anthony Meyer: While supporting accessibility, he clarified that the German Village Society does not oppose ADA ramps but opposes the removal of the COA check and balance mechanism that prevents damage to private properties and historic assets.
Opposition to the Legislation / Emphasis on Preservation and Accountability:
- Jack Decker: President of the Short North Civic Association expressed strong opposition to any action that weakens the historic preservation code. He suggested a "concept review" process as a middle ground rather than a total exemption for the city.
- Michael Gallagher: Chair of the Historic Preservation Committee at the German Village Society clarified that the society is not against ADA ramps but opposes exempting the city from the same preservation rules applied to homeowners. He argued that the removal of 150-year-old sandstone curbs is "irreversible" and that the city should be held to higher standards, not lower ones.
- Lisa Stein: A resident with a husband formerly on the German Village Commission, detailed specific instances of damage caused by contractors without review, including the destruction of salvageable sandstone, pouring of concrete cheek walls against private foundations, and flooding issues. She argued that the COA process is essential guardrails to prevent negligent work.
- Robert Kaplan: A German Village resident opposed the legislation due to specific instances where contractors jackhammered historic materials without notice, damaging private foundations. He argued that the COA process prevents avoidable harm and ensures accessibility and preservation can coexist.
- Courtney Thrane: Executive Director of the German Village Society, argued that historic materials are vital for climate resiliency, fiscal risk management, and tourism revenue. She urged the council to require the COA review process, noting that other cities successfully balance these demands.
- Anthony Hartke: Chair of the German Village Commission, stated that the city has been keeping commissions "at arm's length." He emphasized that the setting (sidewalks, curbs, streets) is a critical part of historic preservation and requested that the city actively involve commissions in the planning process, particularly to differentiate between emergency repairs and planned projects.
- Joe Motel (Columbus Landmarks advocate): Warned against a "death by a thousand cuts" approach where city departments ignore laws protecting architectural character. He argued that allowing exceptions undermines protections for all 18 historic districts and 66 individual properties.
Discussion Items
- Legal Context (Joshua Carti, Assistant City Attorney): Explained that a lawsuit filed by the German Village Society resulted in a preliminary injunction preventing the city from altering sidewalks or curbs without a COA. The court interpreted existing code to require a COA for city work in the right of way, a stance the city argues contradicts 20-30 years of practice and federal obligations (ADA). The proposed legislation aims to clarify the code to restore the city's ability to perform work without this delay.
- Right of Way Definition (Joshua Carti & Randy Trager): Defined the right of way to include roadways, sidewalks, and underground utilities under city control. Clarified that the legislation applies to the right of way, not city-owned structures, which would still require a COA. The definition impacts all historic and design review districts (e.g., East Franklinton, Downtown).
- Impact on Operations and Costs (Randy Trager, James Young, Jim Pike, Drew Williams):
- Delays and Costs: Stated that without the code change, the city faces 1-3 day delays per permit for routine work and potentially 6 times higher costs for specific materials (e.g., sandstone vs. concrete corners). Contractors may file delay claims or cancel contracts if the city cannot proceed, potentially halting 55 ADA ramps in German Village for a decade.
- Material Alternatives: Explained that while the city prefers sandstone curbs, the cost is significantly higher, and custom fabrication for every corner is impractical. Detected warning surfaces must be visible (concrete border or cast iron) to meet federal ADA standards for visual and tactile detection.
- Workload: Drew Williams presented data showing high activity in German Village (452 311s, 597 work orders since 2024), noting that many issues involve curbs or sidewalks, and the current bottleneck affects all city work orders.
- Process and Oversight (Mark Dravillis, Planning Division): Clarified that the COA process is primarily for structures, but the right of way is integral to the district's character. Noted that staff reviews are delegated by commissions but can take months for complex projects. Confirmed that other cities similarly focus COAs on structures, not infrastructure maintenance in the right of way.
- Emergency vs. Planned Work (Anthony Hartke, Randy Trager): The Council and Commission Chair discussed the distinction between emergency repairs (e.g., water main breaks) and planned ADA projects. Hartke suggested a "COA after the fact" for emergencies to ensure materials are salvaged and replaced correctly, while Trager noted that even emergency contractors often destroy historic materials they should have removed carefully first.
Key Outcomes
- Hearing Concluded: The Chair concluded the hearing, acknowledging the emotional intensity and the shared goal of preserving Columbus's neighborhoods while ensuring accessibility.
- Legislative Status: The proposed code change remains on the agenda. It is scheduled for a "first read" on December 8, 2025, with a potential vote on December 15, 2025.
- Continued Engagement: Council members invited residents, departments, and commissions to submit additional pictures, testimony, and feedback before the next steps. The council acknowledged the need to refine the process to better involve historic commissions in future planning and to ensure contractor accountability for material preservation.
- No Final Vote: No vote was taken during this transcript; the matter was adjourned for further deliberation and public input.
Meeting Transcript
All right, good evening, everyone. Um I want to thank everyone. We have a uh almost full house here at Council, which is always something that I like to see because uh we're all here because we love this city. We are all here because we love the places where we live, we love the places that we visit, we love all of the good things that make Columbus uh the place that we choose to call home. So I want to thank everyone uh for making uh the time today to be here with us to be in council chambers. Uh I'm going to go ahead and call this hearing to order. Um excuse me. Today we will be discussing uh proposed updates to the Columbus City Code regarding the right of way and certificate of appropriateness process. Specifically, we will hear about a clarification stating that the City of Columbus does not need to obtain a certificate of appropriateness from commissions with historic architectural or design review authority when performing work within the public right of way. This update is intended to streamline city operations while maintaining our commitment to preserving Columbus Historic Neighborhoods. Columbus historic districts are a vital part of our city's identity. They tell the story of our neighborhoods and our communities' history. I want to be clear that this proposed clarification does not diminish the city's respect for these neighborhoods or our dedication to thoughtful preservation. We remain committed to design practices, engagement, and collaboration with community partners to ensure improvements reflect the character and context of our historic communities. Our responsibility is twofold. One, to preserve the neighborhoods that make Columbus unique, and to ensure residents can rely on safe, accessible, and well maintained public infrastructure. This update allows us to do both. A public right of way is a legal right for the public to travel over land, streets, sidewalks, alleys, and the underground corridors that carry utilities like water, power, and fiber. Even when private property borders or lies beneath these areas, the city maintains authority to operate, repair, and upgrade them. These are public spaces that residents rely on every day for mobility, safety, and access to essential services. Clarifying the code ensures the city can respond quickly, ensuring during emergencies like water main breaks, down traffic lights or hazardous conditions without procedural delays. This update aligns Columbus with common municipal practice. Cities must have the ability to maintain the public right of way to meet safety obligations and operational needs. This change does not alter our commitment to protecting the character of historic districts using context sensitive design, engaging residents and neighborhood groups, and partnering with preservation advocates. Today's hearing is an opportunity to listen. We look forward to hearing from residents about this proposed clarification. Our goal is to ensure Columbus maintains a strong balance between preserving the legacy of our historic neighborhoods and upholding the city's duty to provide safe, accessible and efficient public infrastructure for everyone. Part of the Columbus Forward Package is indeed historic preservation. And my colleague, uh Council President uh Council I just gave you a uh yes, uh update. Um President Pro Tem, Councilmember Rob Dorns is leading the piece of legislation with the support of this council. I would like to give the floor to you, President Pro Tem, uh, to talk a little bit about uh historic preservation. Sure. Thank you, Chair, and I appreciate uh everyone's attendance here. And certainly I've heard from uh a number of residents um electronically and uh calls and emails over the past several weeks about this particular topic today. Um, you know, while we're the public infrastructure isn't always the sexiest thing. I know uh folks have deep, deep interest in this piece of legislation and certainly this proposal. Um I think a lot of the folks that are here, I I'm like you. I think every house and apartment I have lived in in Columbus has been over a hundred years old. So um, yeah, I'm one of those folks that you know you're always terrified when you're doing that home repair project of what you're gonna find that hundred-year-old pipe and you know that kind of thing, in which, but it's been something that I have loved about this city in which I have uh lived over 10 years in one of our historic districts. Um again, one of the things I think is so incredibly valuable about uh Columbus is its vibrant history. And I think German Village and other historic districts within Columbus is a great example of a history that has been certainly uh respected and preserved over the years. And as my council colleague mentioned, one of the uh initiatives from the Columbus War package, which is a package of legislation led by this council uh proactively to think about the growth and and uh quality of life of our residents, is focused on modernizing our historical preservation practices. And we know that in a growing city that that is something that is utmost of importance when we think about um, you know, I chaired the zoning committee, and when we went through the first round of uh of zone in when we modernize our zoning code for the first time in 70 years, uh we had a lot of questions about what that meant for changes in neighborhoods. And I think that was a very valid question that was posed uh during that time, which led to me towards you know, this interest in um bringing forth legislation here in the coming weeks that will set aside money for council to bring folks on to assess what our current historical preservation policies are, where the gaps might be, where modernization may make sense, uh, really to think about how do we do so uh in a respectful way as we move into the future. Um, you know, when I lived in Italian village for 10 years, um my mus my neighborhood was not a museum. You know, it's a historic district, but it's not a museum. It changed and evolved every single year I live there with new residents, new buildings, changes. When we think about the evolution of our historic districts across Columbus, none of them are the same that they were 10, 20, 30, 100 years ago. So when I think about many of those places developing, you know, prior to there being access to cars, prior to there to being, you know, air conditioners on folks' houses, all the kinds of modern amenities that we take for granted today at some point was a change to that neighborhood. And many of those changes I would argue have made life a lot better for folks that live in those areas and have contributed towards making them more livable in our city more livable.
openpublica.com