Title
Notice/Advertisement Title: 4/7 Big Darby Accord Amendment Hearing Minutes
Contact Name: Jacob Dilley
Contact Telephone Number: 614-645-5292
Contact Email Address: jadilley@columbus.gov
Body
Columbus City Council
NEIGHBORHOODS, RECREATION, AND PARKS PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA: Big Darby Accord Amendment
Wednesday - July 9, 2025 5:30 PM City Hall, Council Chambers
Call to Order: 5:30 p.m.
[Council Member Day-Achauer]
Public Hearing of the Big Darby Accord Draft Amendment
Council Staff Present: Councilmember Nancy Day-Achauer, Councilmember Christopher Wyche, Councilmember Tiara Ross, Marwah Warsame, Jacob Dilley, Megan Martinez, Samuel Duling
Introduction:
[Council Member Day-Achauer]
Presentation:
[Chris Hermann, MKSK, Principal, City & Regional Planner]
- Overview of current Big Darby Watershed
- Highlighting Accord area history, mission of protection and growth, accomplishments
- Purpose of Amendment to accommodate around Housing Development and failed goal accomplishments
- Explanation of 2006 Accord on Housing and Business developments, outdated sanitary sewer systems
- Comparison to 2026 Draft Accord with updated technology, development relocations, future development requirements including Darby conservation contribution, best management practices for water quality monitoring
- Guide through Amendment Process including analysis, community education and engagement workshops, feedback, and drafts
- Scientific explanation of the purpose of Amendment including Integrated Prioritization System Study of land use, water quality monitoring, protection of park conservation areas, endangered species, stream corridors,
- Emphasis on Smart Growth reducing sprawl, protecting open space, and safeguard of water quality, concentration on land use and development
- Identifying Revenue Program as part of Amendment
- Emphasis on the longevity of Amendment and this jurisdiction adoption
[Bryan Clark, Department of Development, Deputy Director for Regional Growth Strategies]
- Gratitude to dedication of Councilmembers and staff
- Emphasis on feedback from stakeholders
- Acknowledging importance of IPS phase 2
- Mention of staffing from the city for Amendment
- Importance of land conservation leading to request for capital budget of less than $2M Open Space acquisition funding
- Choice between development on 20-year-old plan or under new standards
- Creating standards for future developments
[Councilmember Wyche]
- Appreciation on work and engagement done by
- Question about rumor of a Data Center in the Darby Accord
- Requirements for Data Centers
[Bryan Clark, Department of Development, Deputy Director for Regional Growth Strategies]
- True yet no rezoning or annexation paperwork has come through
- Any use will come before legislative body of jurisdiction to decide
- Focus on residential, commercial use but does include limited industrial use
[Councilmember Wyche]
- Appreciation for heads-up
- Importance of safeguards
- Define Commercially feasible
[Chris Hermann, MKSK, Principal, City & Regional Planner]
- Similar to variances
- Goal is to protect secondary areas
- Providing alternative for a development widely desired yet sensitive will be considered on how to mitigate within requirements
[Councilmember Wyche]
- How do new requirements from Sustainable Columbus on performance standards align with the requirements within the Accord?
[Bryan Clark, Department of Development, Deputy Director for Regional Growth Strategies]
- Apply to Columbus not necessarily other jurisdictions
[Chirstopher Lohr, Department of Development, Planning Division, Assistant Administrator]
- Any new building standards for Columbus apply
- This plan focused on broad land use considerations not building scale
- 2006 plan experimented with lead for neighborhood development however didn’t exist and difficult to apply to site plan focused on placement
- Falls under adaptive management
- Willing to collaborate
[Councilmember Wyche]
- 50% on site, 25% off site comparison to other jurisdictions in the Accord
- How is this Amendment on par with other jurisdictions inside the Accord?
[Chris Hermann, MKSK, Principal, City & Regional Planner]
- Definition of Open Space different between jurisdictions
- Draft attempts to define
- A jurisdiction can ask for more
[Councilmember Wyche]
- Draft doesn’t apply to all jurisdictions within Accord
[Chris Hermann, MKSK, Principal, City & Regional Planner]
- This is defined as the floor of 50% and each jurisdictions can ask for more
- Depends on definition and what is included
[Councilmember Wyche]
- Are the other townships doing more than 50%? Is that not a requirement?
[Chris Hermann, MKSK, Principal, City & Regional Planner]
- The requirement is 50%
[Councilmember Wyche]
- Should standard be higher for jurisdiction uniformity?
[Chris Hermann, MKSK, Principal, City & Regional Planner]
- Difficult because of increased buffers
- Economically feasible with protection of large components of Accord concerned with open space protection
[Councilmember Wyche]
- Not appropriate time for permanent watershed coordinator inquiry
- What makes a coordinator necessary?
[Chris Hermann, MKSK, Principal, City & Regional Planner]
- Reached consensus with other jurisdictions
- Funding, interplay with jurisdictional authority, management concerns
- Importance of oversight therefore will start with overseeing group coordination
- Operational amendment return to reevaluate
[Bryan Clark, Department of Development, Deputy Director for Regional Growth Strategies]
- Intensely land local question to hand over authority to third party revision, raised concerns of legal ability of an individual entering private property for environmental checks that belongs to the jurisdictional level
- Majority of work will be from the City of Columbus especially development requests
- Importance of Columbus city staff getting through the implementation steps
- Reassessment of plan triggered by adaptive management discussion from jurisdictions will collect the focus and needs
[Councilmember Wyche]
- Include stipulations
- Impact fee reconsideration
- Sounds like reducing cost for developers when revenue is needed for coordinators
[Bryan Clark, Department of Development, Deputy Director for Regional Growth Strategies]
- Balancing environmental protection and affordable housing
- Development benefits baked into draft
[Councilmember Wyche]
- Refine Credit Framework
- Are developers buying their way out of an open space requirement?
[Janco Swart, MKSK, Planner]
- Placeholder
- Developers can purchase “credits” for a third party to purchase land in primary or secondary areas outside of their site
- Deliberation on being equitable among parties
[Councilmember Wyche]
- Final IPS incorporation “may” be added however why not “shall,”?
[Chris Hermann, MKSK, Principal, City & Regional Planner]
- Give flexibility to jurisdictions as there is uncertainty to final IPS anaylsis
- Flexible on changing language
[Councilmember Wyche]
- Jurisdictions will have ability to deny incorporation of final IPS analysis
[Chris Hermann, MKSK, Principal, City & Regional Planner]
- Flexible on changing language
- Jurisdictions in spirit of following IPS just want to know what they are agreeing to first
[Councilmember Wyche]
- Draft plan restricts advisory panel public comments that differ from panel decision
- Infringement of first amendment
- Should be on in alignment of elected officials speaking on behalf of panel
[Chris Hermann, MKSK, Principal, City & Regional Planner]
- In the works
[Councilmember Ross]
- Why would a jurisdiction not want to change the verbiage of “May to Shall”
[Chris Hermann, MKSK, Principal, City & Regional Planner]
- Doesn’t distinguish between year development and concern with already developed private property
[Councilmember Ross]
- Language can be in the middle of “may” and “shall”
- What would trigger review?
[Chris Hermann, MKSK, Principal, City & Regional Planner]
- Panel will meet quarterly, water testing annually, primary land purchase information will be shared publicly
- Figuring out how to adjust to what’s working well and what is not
- Incremental correlations and actions
[Councilmember Ross]
- Is there concern of developmental harm?
[Chris Hermann, MKSK, Principal, City & Regional Planner]
- Do you want inevitable development to be built in 2006 accord or this amendment?
- This amendment uses best understanding we have yet can’t guarantee the harm of any development
[Councilmember Ross]
- Any cost analysis done outlining metrics for people to be able to live in these housing units?
[Bryan Clark, Department of Development, Deputy Director for Regional Growth Strategies]
- No, we’ve looked at defining affordability in this area tying it to the Darby revenue program.
- Housing always expected in the Darby
- 25% of every dollar can be used to support housing affordability options
- A priority to have 4% housing development while far away from state resource waters
- Everything that interacts with the stream must restore it if ecologically degraded leading to protection, restoration, and conservation
[Tim Maloney, Executive Director, Metro Parks]
- Emphasis on Metro Parks conservation efforts of Darby protection including investment of land acres, restoration,
- Received zero funding of Accord due to broken model
- Ability to make sizable differences with increased buffers amidst development pressure
- Will take up maintenance in perpetuity with developments that feed into any of their properties as MetroParks knows how to properly maintain
- Gratitude to Columbus and Departments
[Chelsea Keefer, Restoration Biologist, Streams and Wetlands Foundation]
- Overview of organization
- Emphasis on restoration and being a stakeholder
- Grateful for amount of collaboration
- Open space and open onsite restoration are great but need qualified people working on them in reference to credit framework
[Councilmember Wyche]
- Request for detailed information on credit framework
Public Comments:
1. Mr. Ashley Hoye - Big Darby Accord Advisory Panel
a. Gratitude to those who attend all meetings on Darby
b. Expresses passion for Darby
c. Encourage to visit Darby
d. Confident panel will follow intentions of Amendment
2. Sharon Rastatter - Far West Side Area Commission
a. Emphasis on need for updated Accord
b. Requests pause on Amendment for IPS phase 2 review and recognition of Commission as a stakeholder
c. Commission hasn’t been included thus far
3. Steve Campbell - North Star Development
a. Launched 2006 Accord
b. In favor of the strengthening of the Darby Accord
c. Highlights positives of protections, new tools for revenue program, refines panel training
4. James Jewell - Prairie Township Administrator
a. Emphasis on need to balance conservation of biologically diverse Darby
b. Emphasis on effort in draft
c. Admittance to imperfections but highlights panel will meet quarterly
d. Gratitude to Council and MSKS team
5. Kristin Terry
a. Request to pause Amendment until full understanding of IPS phase 2 study in the summer
b. Emphasis on the importance of the Darby ecologically and economically
c. Timeline irrelevant as already waited 20 years compared to a couple months when full information will be available
6. David Ike
a. Origin of passion for nature and the Darby
b. Piggyback off of Kristin Terry to pause Amendment
7. Melissa Brinkerhoff
a. Resident on Darby
b. Not all jurisdictions are included in meetings, soley funded by City of Columbus
c. Origin of Darby and Accord
d. Concern on rush of passing of Amendment and development
8. Mike Reeves - Kimley-Horn
a. Gratitude to MKS team and Council
b. Explanation of challenges planning off of the 2006 Accord
c. Appreciation to explanation of presenters
d. Pausing Amendment does not pause incoming development applications
9. Anthony Sasson - Darby Creek Association
a. Importance and advancement of IPS study
b. Consequences of incomplete accord reason for pause
c. Request for pause
10. Annalisa Rocca - OEC
a. Importance of Darby
b. Urge for pause to have an informed decision
c. IPS designed to answer tipping points of damage and inform family land use planning
d. Incomplete and outdated science versus complete data on the way
e. Requests an independent organization reporting to Darby
f. Due diligence importance of an informed decision
11. Cynthia Vermillion - Hilliard City Council
a. Explanation of IPS correlation
b. Land use prediction guide tool
c. Hell Branch takes the blow of the Darby, not drafted what will follow
d. Correlation of impervious surfaces and water quality
e. Development needs properly informed guidelines
f. Not making it cheaper for developers
g. IPS phase 2 study wait
12. Adam Lehmann - The Nature Conservancy
a. Highlight the tipping point of Darby, amount of development on watershed
b. What will it take for a balance of development and Darby protection?
c. How much development without ecological damage?
d. Current land use map is based on guesses
e. We don’t have to guess, it’s 4 months away
f. Big comprehensive plan that will be incorporated
g. Impervious surface threshold that won’t degrade the stream
13. Debi Hampton
a. Resident in favor of pausing for informed decision
b. Seen lack of compliance with current plan
c. At open house mentioned prioritization of development
d. Feel unheard since the 2006 plan
e. Request for pause on voting as if it isn’t in the text it doesn’t exist
Closing Remarks:
[Council Member Day-Achauer]
- Gratitude to speakers
- Offer of clarification from panel
[Bryan Clark, Department of Development, Deputy Director for Regional Growth Strategies]
- All here for protection of Darby
- Address the pausing for IPS, the initial IPS was for a debilitating Watershed in need of basic needs
- Currently only using outdated data
- What IPS 2 will give is stressors, what to prioritize, capital yet novel use with novel and won’t have actionable policy impact
- Short pause sounds good but will take a long time to fully understand the data, in this instance can’t hang hat on instable model
[Councilmember Ross]
- What is the urgency of developmental rights compared to IPS study?
[Bryan Clark, Department of Development, Deputy Director for Regional Growth Strategies]
- Developments will only be required to meet 2006 plan and can only say no but focus is on proper development
- Keeping development away from Darby 2 football stadium size buffer beyond ODR standard
- We’ll come back to amend plan if IPS says something is incorrect
- This plan is stronger and smarter than 2006 plan
[Councilmember Ross]
- IPS Phase 2 is coming from ODR?
[Bryan Clark, Department of Development, Deputy Director for Regional Growth Strategies]
- Yes, completed by ODR
- First IPS was delayed for 6 months
- Spent more time with ODR than any other stakeholder group
[Councilmember Day-Achauer]
- Gratitude for engaging in this complicated topic
- Amendment does not clear red tape
- Units allowed is not increased
- Prioritization in restrictions, eliminates tanks and leech lines
- Amendment Backed by science
- Delaying passage delays implementation
- Simply stronger than 2006 plan and strengthens protections
- Won’t be the last opportunity to continue the protection of the Darby as standing committee will be continuously adapting
Adjourned: 7:49 p.m.