While local governments in Franklin County weigh a new draft of the Big Darby Accord, projects are moving forward in the Darby area under a patchwork of standards.
The Columbus Development Commission unanimously recommended approval of a controversial large development in the Darby area June 11 after the Far West Side Area Commission had unanimously rejected it.
Columbus staff say the plan complies with interim guidance the city issued after Columbus paused Big Darby Accord renegotiations to wait for more research, but some environmentalists and the area commission say the development violates the existing accord.
The agreement is meant to protect the Big Darby Watershed, one of the most biodiverse areas in the Midwest and a state and national scenic river. The Big Darby Creek has more endangered species than in Yellowstone National Park, according to the Nature Conservancy.
The pending Anderson Farms development by Westerville-based Metro Development LLC includes over 600 apartments, approximately 300 townhomes and 240 homes on about 152 acres of land on the southwest corner of Roberts Road and Alton Darby Creek Road.
Meanwhile, Hilliard City Council voted May 8 to approve rezoning for a 79-unit development that would be barred by the newest draft of the accord but passed the standards of the 2006 accord.
Density is more than double what’s allowed in 2006 plan, critics say
The Far West Side Area Commission and the Darby Creek Association have said the proposed plan violates the 2006 accord and questioned why Columbus is pushing this project forward while the newest edition of the accord is still in process.
The density in the Anderson Farms development averages to about 7.6 units per acre − about double what’s allowed in the existing Darby accord.
“This level of density is simply not allowed under the plan, as it is currently written,” John Tetzloff, the president of the Darby Creek Association, wrote in a letter to the area commission in January.
After Columbus paused renegotiations in late April to wait for final results from a comprehensive study commissioned by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, city leaders told staff to apply some standards from the newer accord when reviewing development applications.
Brian Clark, deputy director of development for Columbus, said in an interview with The Dispatch that “in every aspect, this project is more protective of the environment than the 2006 accord.”
The interim policy guidance for Columbus says it will use new land use standards because the older map is outdated.
“The city will not require developments to use the 2006 plan policy because it conflicts with state or federal laws or regulations, and applies highly restrictive land uses that promote sprawl, lack scientific justification, and/or practically eliminate affordable housing for our residents,” the document says.
Tetzloff wrote in a letter to the Columbus Development Commission said it’s a “terrible idea” to approve a pending development based on a plan that most partner jurisdictions in Franklin County have not agreed to.
“We want to emphasize that the reason the plan has not been updated is the partners have not yet reached agreement on what should be allowed in the plan, with density and environmental protections being some of many issues still being negotiated,” Tetzloff said.
Does the development have enough open space?
The development plans to meet minimum open space requirement through partially incorporating another parcel that is at least one mile by car from the edge of the residential development.
The total parcel is nearly 50 acres and under the name of another owner as of June 15, according to property records from the Franklin County Auditor. The Anderson Farms developer, however, controls 25 acres on that parcel, according to development plans.
Most of that parcel runs along the western border of Clover Groff just south of Walker Road and is within a conservation area that the latest draft of the accord already protects from development.
Without the offsite parcel, the 62 acres of open space planned on the main 152-acre development fails to meet the open space requirements.
The newest draft of the accord specifies that total open space should be at least 50% of “gross development area or total preserved conservation area, whichever is greater.” But it’s unclear whether the offsite open space will be counted as part of the overall development as well.
The 62 acres of open space combined with the 25 acres offsite would total 87 acres. That represents 57% of the 152-acre development. If the 25 offsite acres were included in the total, it would push the total development size to 177 acres and drive down the share of open space to 49%.
When asked if the development would be out of compliance with the most recent public draft, Christine Reedy, a spokesperson for the Columbus department of development, said the open space requirement is based on the site itself, not offsite open space.
The new draft accord includes a provision that any offsite open space can be counted, but needs to be calculated at a rate of 1.5 per 1 acre of open space outside the main development site. That is not part of the city’s interim guidance, according to the document shared with The Dispatch.
Columbus City Council is expected to consider the development sometime in August following the July recess, Clark said.
Anna Lynn Winfrey covers regional/suburban trending news for The Columbus Dispatch. She can be reached at awinfrey@dispatch.com.
This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Big Darby development moves forward amid pushback
Reporting by Anna Lynn Winfrey, Columbus Dispatch / The Columbus Dispatch
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By Anna Lynn Winfrey, Columbus Dispatch | USA TODAY Network
