OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Public Hearing on Big Darby Accord Amendment – March 25, 2026

Council Committees — Wednesday, March 25, 2026
BodyColumbus, Ohio
SessionCouncil Committees
DateWednesday, March 25, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:18:37

Transcript — Verbatim
0:01

In addition to representing District 2, which is on the far west side of Columbus.

0:06

Today we will hear presentations about the tremendous amount of work that is being done to update the Big Derby Accord, a vital interjurisdictional agreement aimed at protecting the Big Darby Creek watershed.

0:18

This review process has lasted nearly a year and a half and has been one of the most complex and scientific city projects I've seen in my time as a council member.

0:28

The purpose of this hearing is to inform the public about why the Accord needs an update, what community engagement efforts went into this process, the science-backed environmental goals of an updated accord, and what is being improved to further protect the watershed.

0:44

We're happy to be joined this evening by several individuals who have really been knee deep in this project since 2024.

0:52

Chris Herman, MKSK principal, city and regional planner, Ianko Sport, MKSK planner.

1:00

Brian Clark, Department of Development, Deputy Director for Regional Growth Strategies, and Christopher Lore, Department of Development Planning Division Assistant Administrator.

1:11

I'm also thankful to be joined by my fellow council members, a committee vice chair Councilmember Weich and Councilmember Ross.

1:21

Would either of you like to share some opening remarks?

1:24

No.

1:26

Okay.

1:26

Well, thank you all for being here this evening.

1:29

I will now hand over the speaking to Chris Herman and the team to share their presentation for my colleagues.

1:40

If you could take note of your questions as they move through the presentation, and then we'll go around the dias to answer questions at the end.

1:48

Okay.

1:49

So turn it over to you.

1:52

That's good, thank you.

1:53

Thank you very much.

1:54

Again, my name is Chris Herman, and thank you for your time tonight.

1:58

I have about a 25-slide presentation, which I'll keep short and to the point.

2:04

Wanted to start just by providing an overview of the Big Derby watershed.

2:09

It's an exemplary watershed, which is why this has become such a big topic for the region over the past decades, actually.

2:20

It's a natural scenic river, state scenic river, exceptional warwater habitat, also outstanding state waters, and it's under the uh strongest protections of the Ohio EPA.

2:32

And so this is uh the watershed for watershed for Big Derby.

2:38

You'll see in the pink is the Accord area.

2:41

So one of the things that I think is really important to keep in mind is the watershed is 555 square miles.

2:48

The Accord area is about 83 square miles.

2:50

And so we're focused on the Franklin County portion of the watershed, and that's what this accord covers.

2:57

Uh the 2006 accord was a uh cooperation between 10 Franklin County jurisdictions.

3:06

Uh it was voluntary, shared goals to promote conservation and development.

3:12

And there's a linkage between those two, and I'll explain that more as we go.

3:17

This is the current 2006 mission statement.

3:21

Um, but the key point is to preserve, protect, and approve the Big Derby Creek watershed and its unique ecosystems, also to promote responsible growth.

3:33

Uh, in some of the meetings we've had in the open house, I do want to point out in the second bullet.

3:38

Some people were confused and thought this is something new.

3:41

This is the current uh mission statement.

3:44

It talks about adequate public facilities, it talks about promoting a full spectrum of housing choice and providing the educational recreation and civic opportunities of the citizens of each jurisdiction.

3:55

Um we are preserving this mission statement and carrying forward.

3:59

The only thing we are changing is the very last bullet, which reference studies that occurred in the early 2000s when this was uh adopted, and we're gonna make it more generic to just reference studies that are occurring and updating and taking into account.

4:14

The accord has done a lot of amazing things, and uh all the jurisdictions should be proud of what has been accomplished.

4:22

Um almost 3,500 acres of open space and prime conservation areas have been protected.

4:28

Uh we've seen uh over 6,000 housing units built since 2007.

4:33

Those developments have used best management practices, and you'll hear us say BMPs a lot.

4:39

That is how you uh do development in a way that uh takes addresses stormwater runoff.

4:46

So best management practices are the ways to address how stormwater runoff is treated on site to make it uh a better water quality and less of an impact onto the receiving streams.

5:00

A big part of this has been a big success has been nine stream and wetland restorations as part of this that's occurred.

5:06

We're excited to continue to see restorations as more projects are advanced.

5:12

And again, it has been a multi-jurisdictional process with an accord review panel that reviews developments before they're approved and reviewed by the jurisdictions.

5:21

Why are we talking about amending it now?

5:25

Because it has been 20 years since this accord was originally written and adopted.

5:31

There really have not been any updates in that time, and some components didn't achieve the goals that we originally set out or the expectations that we had, and I will touch on that further.

5:42

In addition, assumptions have changed.

5:44

And some of the things that are really critical now, maybe the priorities have shifted a little bit, like the housing.

5:49

We knew housing was an issue then, but it's really become a big deal now.

5:53

We haven't acquired as much open space, I think, as we originally had hoped we would, and we are facing pressing, and you all know this.

6:00

We're facing pressing issues related to housing supply.

6:04

There's development waiting in the wings that wants to build in some of these areas.

6:08

We need infrastructure investment, uh, and we want to make sure that we get these revisions in place so that new development follows these new guidelines and requirements.

6:19

The 2006 Accord, I think really high level points, it established a maximum threshold of 20,000 new units, residential units in this area.

6:30

It also looked at kind of three different concentrations of development.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Environmental Protection█████████████████████████████████████████████80%
Community Engagement███6%
Economic Development██4%
Water And Wastewater Management██3%
Engineering And Infrastructure█2%
Parks and Recreation█2%
Fiscal Sustainability█1%
Public Engagement█1%
Affordable Housing█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Public Hearing on Big Darby Accord Amendment – March 25, 2026

The Columbus City Council held a public hearing to discuss the proposed update to the Big Darby Accord, a 20-year-old interjurisdictional agreement protecting the Big Darby Creek watershed in Franklin County. The hearing featured presentations from planning consultants, city development staff, invited speakers from Metro Parks and the Streams and Wetlands Foundation, and public testimony from 13 speakers. The update aims to strengthen water quality monitoring, expand protected conservation areas, increase stream buffers, and improve the revenue model for land acquisition, while maintaining the existing cap of 20,000 residential units. A major point of contention was whether to delay the amendment until the completion of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Integrated Prioritization System (IPS) Phase 2 study, expected later in 2026.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Ashley Hoy (Chair, Big Darby Accord Advisory Panel) – Expressed support for the amendment, noting the panel’s labor of love and the need for updated tools.
  • Sharon Rastetter (Chair, Far West Side Area Commission) – Requested a pause until IPS Phase 2 is completed and integrated; also asked for formal stakeholder inclusion for the Area Commission.
  • Steve Campbell (North Star Policy and Project Development) – Supported the amendment, highlighting stronger standards, stream restoration, buffers, monitoring, and revenue dedication.
  • James Jewell (Prairie Township Administrator) – Supported moving forward, noting the amendment is not perfect but better than the current plan, with quarterly BDART reviews.
  • Kristen Terry (Columbus resident, OSU graduate student) – Urged council to wait for IPS Phase 2, citing the Derby’s ecological importance and the need for science-based decisions.
  • David Icke (Franklin County resident) – Requested a pause until IPS Phase 2 is completed and reviewed.
  • Melissa Brinkerhoff (Watershed resident) – Asked for a pause, emphasizing the 14,000-year history of the creek and the need for more science.
  • Mike Reeves (City-appointed Big Darby Accord Advisory Panel member) – Supported keeping the process moving, noting development applications continue under the outdated 2006 plan.
  • Anthony Sasson (Darby Creek Association) – Asked for a pause, citing the Hellbranch Run mussel survey finding no living mussels and the need to incorporate IPS Phase 2.
  • Annalisa Rocca (Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund) – Urged a pause for IPS Phase 2, but praised positive elements like increased buffers and monitoring.
  • Cynthia Vermillion (resident) – Urged waiting for IPS Phase 2, noting the correlation between impervious surfaces and stream degradation.
  • Adam Lehman (resident) – Asked for a pause, stating the IPS Phase 2 will answer how much development the watershed can absorb.
  • Debbie Hampton (Columbus resident) – Asked council to wait for IPS Phase 2, expressing concern about lack of compliance with existing plan and citing the Anderson Farm development.

Discussion Items

  • Presentation by Chris Herman (MKSK) and Brian Clark (Department of Development) – Reviewed the 18-month amendment process, key changes including: expansion of protected conservation areas from 25,000 to 30,000 acres; increased stream buffers (150 feet on both sides of Big/Little Darby, 1,000 feet and 400 feet on tributaries); 50% open space requirement on new developments; new water quality monitoring program (rotating annually among main stems, tributaries, and aquatic biology); dedicated 25% of revenue for conservation land acquisition; and a commitment to quarterly BDART meetings for adaptive management.
  • Councilmember Nancy Day Achauer’s questions – Inquired about potential data center development in the watershed (confirmed land purchase in 2024 but no rezoning applications yet); definition of “commercially feasible” for secondary conservation areas; interplay with other jurisdictions’ open space requirements; absence of a permanent watershed coordinator (consensus not reached among BDART members); impact fee adequacy ($2,500 per unit in 2006, now worth ~$4,000); open space credit framework (placeholder for future consideration); and the “may” vs “shall” language regarding IPS Phase 2 incorporation (staff agreed to consider stronger language).
  • Councilmember Christopher Weish’s questions – Followed up on the data center issue; asked about Sustainable Columbus’s role (will provide staff support for implementation); discussed the need for a watershed coordinator and the balance between environmental protection and housing affordability; requested a cost analysis for housing affordability (not yet done, but revenue can support affordability programs).
  • Councilmember Ross’s questions – Focused on the “may” vs “shall” issue regarding IPS Phase 2, suggesting intermediate language; asked about triggers for adaptive management (quarterly reviews, water quality data, public reporting).
  • Invited Speakers:
    • Tim Maloney (Metro Parks) – Strongly supported the update, noting Metro Parks has invested $11 million in land acquisition since 2006 but received zero funding from the Accord’s revenue mechanism. Praised the increased buffers and called for all jurisdictions to prohibit variances that increase impervious surface.
    • Chelsea Kiefer (Streams and Wetlands Foundation) – Supported the amendment, offered expertise on open space aggregation and restoration, and noted the collaborative process.

Key Outcomes

  • No vote was taken; the hearing was for public input and council discussion.
  • Council indicated that changes to wording (e.g., “may” to “shall” regarding IPS Phase 2 incorporation; restriction on advisory panel members’ public comment) would be considered.
  • Staff committed to working with ODNR and stakeholders on IPS Phase 2 and to reconvening BDART quarterly.
  • Next steps: Council will review public comments (13 oral, 25 written) and consider revisions before a future vote. The administration intends to seek adoption by Columbus first, with other jurisdictions to follow. A $2 million capital budget request for Derby open space acquisition was announced.

Meeting Transcript

In addition to representing District 2, which is on the far west side of Columbus. Today we will hear presentations about the tremendous amount of work that is being done to update the Big Derby Accord, a vital interjurisdictional agreement aimed at protecting the Big Darby Creek watershed. This review process has lasted nearly a year and a half and has been one of the most complex and scientific city projects I've seen in my time as a council member. The purpose of this hearing is to inform the public about why the Accord needs an update, what community engagement efforts went into this process, the science-backed environmental goals of an updated accord, and what is being improved to further protect the watershed. We're happy to be joined this evening by several individuals who have really been knee deep in this project since 2024. Chris Herman, MKSK principal, city and regional planner, Ianko Sport, MKSK planner. Brian Clark, Department of Development, Deputy Director for Regional Growth Strategies, and Christopher Lore, Department of Development Planning Division Assistant Administrator. I'm also thankful to be joined by my fellow council members, a committee vice chair Councilmember Weich and Councilmember Ross. Would either of you like to share some opening remarks? No. Okay. Well, thank you all for being here this evening. I will now hand over the speaking to Chris Herman and the team to share their presentation for my colleagues. If you could take note of your questions as they move through the presentation, and then we'll go around the dias to answer questions at the end. Okay. So turn it over to you. That's good, thank you. Thank you very much. Again, my name is Chris Herman, and thank you for your time tonight. I have about a 25-slide presentation, which I'll keep short and to the point. Wanted to start just by providing an overview of the Big Derby watershed. It's an exemplary watershed, which is why this has become such a big topic for the region over the past decades, actually. It's a natural scenic river, state scenic river, exceptional warwater habitat, also outstanding state waters, and it's under the uh strongest protections of the Ohio EPA. And so this is uh the watershed for watershed for Big Derby. You'll see in the pink is the Accord area. So one of the things that I think is really important to keep in mind is the watershed is 555 square miles. The Accord area is about 83 square miles. And so we're focused on the Franklin County portion of the watershed, and that's what this accord covers. Uh the 2006 accord was a uh cooperation between 10 Franklin County jurisdictions. Uh it was voluntary, shared goals to promote conservation and development. And there's a linkage between those two, and I'll explain that more as we go. This is the current 2006 mission statement. Um, but the key point is to preserve, protect, and approve the Big Derby Creek watershed and its unique ecosystems, also to promote responsible growth. Uh, in some of the meetings we've had in the open house, I do want to point out in the second bullet. Some people were confused and thought this is something new. This is the current uh mission statement. It talks about adequate public facilities, it talks about promoting a full spectrum of housing choice and providing the educational recreation and civic opportunities of the citizens of each jurisdiction. Um we are preserving this mission statement and carrying forward. The only thing we are changing is the very last bullet, which reference studies that occurred in the early 2000s when this was uh adopted, and we're gonna make it more generic to just reference studies that are occurring and updating and taking into account. The accord has done a lot of amazing things, and uh all the jurisdictions should be proud of what has been accomplished. Um almost 3,500 acres of open space and prime conservation areas have been protected. Uh we've seen uh over 6,000 housing units built since 2007. Those developments have used best management practices, and you'll hear us say BMPs a lot. That is how you uh do development in a way that uh takes addresses stormwater runoff. So best management practices are the ways to address how stormwater runoff is treated on site to make it uh a better water quality and less of an impact onto the receiving streams. A big part of this has been a big success has been nine stream and wetland restorations as part of this that's occurred. We're excited to continue to see restorations as more projects are advanced. And again, it has been a multi-jurisdictional process with an accord review panel that reviews developments before they're approved and reviewed by the jurisdictions. Why are we talking about amending it now? Because it has been 20 years since this accord was originally written and adopted.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com