Fwd: Concern about 146 Walhalla rezoning/split/variances

[Jeff Frontz]

Attached below (see "forwarded message") are the comments that I sent to the CAC Z&V (and others) before their meeting last month.  As a preface, I want to share how my thinking evolved.

When I was first told several months ago (by Z&V Chair Hardwick) about a proposed house at the East California curve (and being shown a very rough sketch of the lots/footprint), I was cautiously supportive.  Considering the impending legalization of ADUs and being unaware of exactly what the lot lines/zoning was, my reaction to Chair Hardwick was that it seemed like a not-bad spot to put a small house.  As there had been no formal application presented to the CAC, I didn't give it much thought until the Z&V meeting notice in early December.

When I started reviewing the variance packet, I noticed that the proposed site was part of an RRR ravine lot (the RRR zoning meant to protect ravine-area greenspace) -- and that's when I became concerned.

The proposal would:
 - require a ravine lot split,
 - have zero-foot setbacks on three sides (building right up to the right of way),
 - eliminate required green space by taking up such a large portion of the carved-off lot,
 - result in a new structure that appears as large as, if not larger than, the existing house.

I think the one commenter at the Z&V said it best: that it requires so many [extreme] variances (including TWO city council variances) pretty much shows that it is not appropriate for the neighborhood.

The kicker for me is the lot split. This really isn’t about one house—it’s about reopening the door to splitting ravine-area lots, which is exactly what the RRR zoning was put in place to prevent. Maintaining lot integrity was something folks in the early days of the WRA fought hard for – specifically to stop lots from being carved up and sold to builders, permanently eliminating green space. To avoid setting a precedent that would allow portions of Walhalla lots to be carved off once again, I am opposed to the 146 Walhalla lot split and RRR-avoiding variances.

Jeff

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jeff Frontz <jeff....@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 3:58 PM
Subject: Concern about 146 Walhalla rezoning/split/variances

[ Unfortunately I am traveling this week and am unable to appear at the Z&V or CAC meetings ]

The Walhalla Ravine Association was formed more than fifty years ago in response to development pressures that threatened to fragment the ravine through repeated lot splits and the loss of significant green space. In that context, the Association successfully petitioned Columbus City Council to rezone ravine properties as Restricted Rural Residential, with the explicit goal of preserving green space and maintaining the character of the ravine area. That zoning has protected Walhalla Ravine for decades.

More recently, the City has adopted Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) legislation, which provides a clear and appropriate means of adding residential capacity while maintaining existing lot boundaries, setbacks, and required surrounding green space. These provisions were specifically designed to allow modest increases in density without undermining long-standing zoning objectives.

Given this alternative, there is no clear justification for a lot split at 146 Walhalla that would substantially reduce required green space and introduce a zero-setback duplex. Any additional dwelling on this property should be pursued through an ADU consistent with the intent of the Restricted Rural Residential zoning, rather than through subdivision and a duplex form that runs counter to the long-standing purpose of these protections.

Thanks,

Jeff Frontz

310 Walhalla Rd

Note:  these comments are my own and not intended to be representative of the Walhalla Ravine Association (which, given the time constraints and holidays, has taken no position at this time).