How Area Commissions Inhibit Development: A Legal and Economic Case for Reform

The recent Franklinton Area Commission zoning hearing was intended to be a straightforward procedural review of our Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) application, focusing on two minor variances. Instead, it devolved into a chaotic, unstructured forum riddled with procedural failures, personal attacks, and unqualified opinions on non-zoning matters. This event was not an anomaly but a stark example of how local advisory bodies systematically obstruct economic growth, stifle investment, and prevent cities from advancing toward modern, well-planned development.

A National Perspective: Legal and Economic Precedent for Reform

Cities and states that embrace streamlined zoning processes recognize that advisory bodies such as area commissions are outdated relics that exacerbate housing shortages and disincentivize private investment. Florida’s Live Local Act has established a legal precedent by allowing developers to bypass local advisory bodies for affordable housing projects. Texas and Arizona have similarly prioritized state-mandated zoning codes over discretionary local reviews, ensuring that projects proceed based on merit and compliance with legal requirements, rather than arbitrary community gatekeeping. These policies eliminate the subjective and often prejudiced decision-making that plagues cities like Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio’s Flawed Home Rule and the Legal Overreach of Advisory Bodies

Unlike states that have embraced efficiency and economic rationality in zoning, Ohio’s home rule structure mandates an advisory review process that has no binding authority yet still exerts a disproportionate influence on zoning decisions. The lack of standardized legal requirements and training for area commissions fosters an environment where local politics, uninformed opinions, and even outright discrimination can override the rule of law.

Harvard Law School’s research into “Regulatory Barriers to Housing Development” has repeatedly highlighted how advisory bodies across the country slow economic growth and exacerbate affordability crises. By requiring an extra layer of discretionary review, these commissions deter investment, increase project costs, and create unpredictability that discourages developers from pursuing otherwise viable projects.

The Franklinton Case: A Breakdown of Governance and Process

In our recent case, city staff had already approved our project as a permitted use under existing zoning laws. Yet, we were still forced to sit through nearly an hour of questioning—much of it unrelated to zoning or variances. This included irrelevant and uninformed concerns such as whether an F-150 truck could fit into a parking space—a matter that has nothing to do with land use policy.

Furthermore, members of the public were permitted to speak out of turn, disrupt the process, and hijack the discussion without any enforcement of procedural rules. As developers, we had no structured pathway to refute misinformation or to provide clarifications.

Beyond the structural inefficiencies, the level of personal hostility in these hearings is alarming. A member of the publiceven questioned whether I, as an investor, should be allowed to develop in the neighborhood, stating: “We are also here to vote on Rob Ellis being in our community as an investor, and I don’t support that by any means.” This blatant display of prejudice and anti-development bias underscores the need for fundamental legal reform.

A Pattern of Rejection: The Economic Consequences of Bureaucratic Gatekeeping

This is not an isolated case. Over the past year, four separate permitted-use projects—including an affordable committed development, a triplex, a hotel, and now a parking structure—have been either declined, tabled, or obstructed by the Franklinton Area Commission. Each of these projects conformed to zoning laws and should have been fast-tracked under any reasonable development framework.

A growing body of economic research, including studies from the Harvard Kennedy School and the Brookings Institution, demonstrates that excessive local zoning regulation increases housing costs, exacerbates affordability crises, and reduces economic mobility. Cities that implement excessive discretionary review processes see slower economic growth, lower housing supply, and diminished competitiveness compared to cities that allow by-right development to proceed without obstruction.

The Gap Between City Planning and Area Commissions

Zoning should be a matter of law, professional urban planning, and economic feasibility—not a free-for-all where unqualified, unelected individuals can exert control over private property rights. The proper decision-makers in zoning matters should be city planners, architects, and zoning attorneys—professionals with expertise in development policy, infrastructure needs, and economic impact.

Instead, advisory bodies act as gatekeepers without accountability. There is no standardized training, no legal oversight, and no requirement that their decisions align with established zoning principles. This lack of professionalism and coherence results in erratic and unpredictable decision-making that serves no legitimate policy objective.

The Legal and Policy Case for Reform

The solution is clear: area commissions must be stripped of their ability to influence zoning approvals and be relegated to purely public feedback mechanisms. Their function should be advisory only, without the ability to stall projects that comply with existing legal frameworks.

Harvard Law School's “Zoning and Land Use Law” research supports reforms that eliminate unnecessary discretionary processes and refocus development review on compliance with legal zoning codes. Additionally, state-level policies such as California’s SB 35 have demonstrated how eliminating local advisory barriers can rapidly accelerate housing development and economic investment.

Local zoning should be driven by objective legal criteria, economic rationality, and urban planning principles—not by emotion, personal bias, or the political whims of a small group of volunteers. Until Columbus and other Ohio cities reform their advisory review processes, they will continue to lose out on investment, economic growth, and progress toward a more dynamic and affordable housing market.

Final Call: End the Era of Local Development Obstruction

The Franklinton zoning hearing is a case study in why advisory bodies should have no role in the zoning approval process. Columbus must embrace legal and economic reform by adopting state-mandated zoning frameworks, by-right development approvals, and elimination of discretionary local advisory reviews. The city’s future economic growth depends on it.

Rob Ellis, Pink Development and Construction LLC

#UrbanDevelopment #ZoningReform #RealEstate #HousingPolicy #LegalReform #CityPlanning #Investment #PolicyChange #DevelopmentBarriers #HousingCrisis #OhioRealEstate #SmartGrowth #EconomicGrowth #LandUseLaw #UrbanLaw #ZoningLaws #homerule #livelocal #livelocalact #columbus #ohio