Darby Creek Advocate Volume 9, Issue 3  November 2001

Columbus’s immediate development policy in the Darby watershed will be decided by voters in the city’s next general election in May.
After collecting more than 12,000 signatures, a local group, Progress with Economic and Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, has succeeded in placing a Darby initiative on the Columbus ballot. If passed, it would effectively halt all new city-driven development in the Darby watershed for a period of five years by banning the extension of new sewer and water lines there.
According to a PEER press release, the initiative is designed to “give time for all political subdivisions in the Big Darby Watershed to work out a comprehensive plan for smart growth in that area.” The group has chosen “Stop the Sprawl” as the theme for its campaign.
DCA has not taken a position on the initiative. However, it should be noted that PEER is headed by DCA secretary Paul Dumouchelle, and some DCA members helped gather signatures.
At a recent Columbus City Council meeting council members unanimously rejected the initiative, effectively forcing it onto the next ballot. In voting against the measure most members expressed concern that blocking Columbus growth would encourage developers to turn to the county to approve their projects, resulting in the proliferation of land application sewage treatment plants in the watershed.
Said Councilman Richard Sensenbrenner: “Land application is the huge threat in the watershed.” Echoing Sensenbrenner, Councilman Mike Mentel warned that by law the Ohio EPA would be forced to permit land application sewage plants. Columbus Utilities Director John Doutt testified that the city’s centralized sewage treatment offers the best management practice for new developments.
Dumouchelle countered that the EPA rejected the Sugar Farms land application project, and noted that unlike Columbus, the Franklin County Commissioners, who would have to approve all land application projects, have adopted DCA’s “Darby Accord,” pledging to protect the creek and its tributaries from damage from development.
Council members also argued that the city’s new Hellbranch zoning overlay, and their proposed Environmentally Sensitive Developement Area, are adequate to protect the watershed in western Franklin County.
Columbus has also begun very preliminary study of a possible restoration project where Hamilton Ditch and Clover-Groff Ditch come together to form Hellbranch Run. The goal of the multi-million dollar project would be to capture pollutants from developments upstream and filter them through a system of constructed wetlands.
Sensenbrenner went as far as to state that he felt the city was being “punished” by the ballot initiative.
Though DCA has not taken an official position, we do not see the purpose of the effort as punishment. Rather, the intent seems to be to encourage a greater level of planning.
Further, it is hard to see how allowing the entire Columbus community to debate and decide Darby policy is a bad idea. The initiative will broaden the scope of public input beyond traditional Darby interests, namely environmentalists and a small group of overly influential developers.
In the past, DCA has expressed concerns over Columbus’s Darby policies. Specifically, we do not believe that zoning alone can protect against the further degradation of the watershed. We have urged Columbus to work with the county and other local entities to come up with a comprehensive plan. Ideally we believe the issue of the best sewage treatment for the area should be agreed upon by the city and county, and should be ratified by the Ohio EPA.
Despite our differences, DCA recognizes that Columbus officials have sought to improve the quality of their developments in the watershed. The zoning provisions set to be proposed by the city are forward-looking and will certainly minimize negative impacts of new development. Still, there is a limit to how much farmland can be turned into houses if we hope to preserve Darby. Columbus has not yet addressed that limit.