GENERAL COMMENTS

On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Central Ohio (BIA), representing over 800 member companies including home builders, developers, remodelers, and associated trades and suppliers, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Big Darby Accord Master Plan Amendment. Our members have a long history of responsible development in the Big Darby watershed, and we share the Accord's mission of protecting this exceptional natural resource while promoting responsible growth and a full spectrum of housing choice for Central Ohio families.

The BIA recognizes the significant environmental value of the Big Darby Creek and its tributaries. Our members have worked within the framework of the 2006 Accord for nearly two decades, contributing to the protection of over 3,500 acres of open space and the construction of approximately 6,100 housing units built to Darby standards. We approach this amendment process as partners in conservation, not adversaries, and offer these comments in a spirit of constructive engagement.

However, the BIA has significant concerns that several provisions in this draft will substantially increase development costs without proportionate environmental benefits, ultimately harming housing affordability in a region already facing a critical housing shortage. The amendment itself acknowledges that "development in the Darby is inherently more expensive" (Section 7.6) and that "increases in development costs will be passed on to renters and buyers." MORPC forecasts that Central Ohio will add roughly 726,000 residents by 2050, and studies indicate the region needs to nearly double its annual housing permitting to meet demand. Regulations that unnecessarily or potentially out of line with their potential contribution to the desired outcome increase per-unit costs and work against this critical regional need.

We note that many proposed requirements exceed prior Accord requirements and Ohio EPA Appendix 3-3 standards (which provides for specific protections of environmentally sensitive areas within the Big Darby Creek Watershed) and the Construction General Permit without clear scientific justification for the additional cost burden. The BIA requests that each requirement exceeding state minimums be accompanied by peer-reviewed scientific evidence demonstrating that the incremental environmental benefit justifies the additional expense. Absent such evidence, we respectfully submit that state standards—developed by Ohio EPA with extensive scientific input1—should remain the baseline.

The BIA acknowledges several positive elements of this amendment that our members support, including the strategic focus on directing growth along the suburban edge where centralized utilities exist, the recognition that higher-density development can reduce overall impervious footprint compared to sprawling low-density patterns, the new allowance for offsite open space dedication (though we have concerns about the multiplier), the density bonus provisions (which require strengthening), and the commitment to streamlining the BDAAP review process. These provisions reflect the practical realities of sustainable development and demonstrate the Accord's willingness to evolve. We offer the following section-specific comments to strengthen the amendment while maintaining its environmental protection goals.

1 The current OEPA standards and 208 Plan were certified by Governor DeWine in June 2024 after over 20 public/outreach meetings and the OEPA receiving hundreds of public comments. This 208 plan was further approved by the USEPA in September 2024.

SECTION-SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Section 4.15.4 - Stream Corridor Protection Zone (Page 35)

Issue: The amendment increases the minimum riparian buffer from Ohio EPA's Appendix 3-3 requirement of 100 feet to 150 feet on each side of streams. This represents a 50% increase over current state requirements.

Impact: For a typical site with 1,000 linear feet of stream, this increases protected corridor from approximately 4.6 acres to 6.9 acres—removing 2.3 additional acres from development. At current land values and density allowances, this could eliminate 5-10 lots per 1,000 feet of stream, representing significant lost housing opportunity and increased per-unit land costs for remaining lots.

BIA Request: Either (1) maintain the Ohio EPA 100-foot minimum with 150 feet as a recommendation or incentivized option, or (2) provide the specific peer-reviewed scientific study demonstrating that 150 feet provides meaningfully better water quality outcomes than 100 feet in this watershed to justify the cost increase. If neither can be provided, this requirement should remain at the state standard that Ohio EPA determined appropriate for this watershed.

Section 4.15.5 - Riparian Forest Cover in SCPZ (Page 36)

Issue: The requirement for 150 feet of contiguous riparian forest cover on each side of streams, with a goal of 50% forest cover in the entire SCPZ, was "not addressed" in the 2006 Plan and exceeds state requirements.

Impact: Many developable sites have degraded or non-forested stream corridors reflecting decades of agricultural use. Establishing 150 feet of contiguous forest requires significant restoration costs (typically $15,000-$25,000 per acre for site preparation, planting, and establishment) plus 5-10 years of maintenance before canopy closure. This timeline conflicts with typical development schedules and construction financing terms, potentially rendering projects infeasible.

BIA Request: Allow native meadow/prairie plantings as an alternative where forest restoration is not feasible within development timelines. Prairie ecosystems are historically appropriate for this region, provide excellent water quality and habitat benefits, and establish within 2-3 years. Alternatively, allow payment into the Open Space Fund in lieu of on-site forest establishment at sites where restoration timing is commercially infeasible, with those funds directed to established restoration projects with higher success probability.

Section 6.5 - Zero Effective Impervious Area Requirement (Page 71)

Issue: The requirement that "All new developments must demonstrate zero Effective Impervious Area" is the most significant new cost driver in this amendment. This was "not addressed" in the 2006 Plan and goes substantially beyond current state requirements.

Impact: Achieving zero EIA requires extensive infiltration BMPs (bioretention cells, permeable pavement, rain gardens, infiltration trenches) distributed throughout a development. Based on member experience and engineering estimates, this adds $8,000-$15,000 per lot in BMP construction costs, plus ongoing HOA maintenance obligations that affect long-term affordability. Sites with poor soil permeability (clay soils common throughout Franklin County) may find this technically impossible without underdrains that ultimately discharge to receiving waters—arguably defeating the infiltration purpose.

BIA Request: (1) Clarify specific soil conditions, drainage characteristics, or site constraints that would qualify for the "technically infeasible" exception referenced elsewhere in the document. (2) Establish a maximum EIA threshold (e.g., 10% EIA) rather than absolute zero, consistent with peer-reviewed scientific literature showing meaningful water quality benefits can be achieved at low-but-non-zero impervious levels. (3) Provide a list of pre-approved infiltration methods and design standards to reduce engineering uncertainty and plan review time. (4) Allow engineered treatment trains (settling + filtration + controlled release) as alternatives where infiltration is infeasible due to soil conditions.

Section 6.6 - Mandatory Stream/Wetland Restoration (Page 74)

Issue: The requirement that ecologically degraded streams and wetlands "must be restored or enhanced as part of the development" applies broadly to channelized ditches and other historic modifications common throughout the planning area due to over a century of agricultural drainage practices.

Impact: Stream restoration costs typically range from $200-$500 per linear foot depending on complexity, with some projects exceeding $1,000 per foot. A 2,000-foot degraded channel could add $400,000-$1,000,000 to project costs before any homes are built. This requirement could render otherwise viable sites commercially infeasible, pushing development pressure to less environmentally sensitive areas outside the Accord boundaries. The document provides no objective definition of "ecologically degraded" or identifies which entity makes that determination, creating significant uncertainty for land acquisition and project planning.

BIA Request: (1) Provide clear, objective criteria for determining "ecologically degraded" status using established metrics such as QHEI scores (e.g., QHEI < 50 = degraded). (2) Establish cost thresholds for "commercially infeasible" determinations (e.g., restoration costs exceeding 15% of raw land value or $15,000 per developable acre). (3) Allow certified mitigation banking credits or payment into the Open Space Fund as alternatives to on-site restoration when costs exceed feasibility thresholds, directing those funds to priority restoration sites identified by BDART. (4) Clearly designate which entity (Ohio EPA, jurisdiction staff, BDART, or independent consultant) has authority to determine degraded status and establish an appeal process.

Section 4.6 - Wetland Buffer Requirements (Pages 36-38)

Issue: The amendment increases minimum wetland buffers by 50+ feet across all categories: Category 3 from 120 feet to 175 feet, Category 2 from 75 feet to 125 feet, and Category 1 from 25 feet to 75 feet. The Category 1 increase represents a 200% expansion of buffer requirements for the lowest-quality wetlands.

Impact: The cumulative effect of expanded stream and wetland buffers significantly reduces developable acreage on sites with water features. The justification provided for Category 1 expansion ("aligning with increases for Categories 2 and 3") is not a scientific basis—it is simply maintaining proportional increases without ecological rationale. Category 1 wetlands, by definition, have limited ecological function.

BIA Request: For Category 1 wetlands (lowest quality), maintain the current 25-foot state minimum identified in Appendix 3-3 or provide peer-reviewed ecological justification for why low-quality wetlands in the Darby watershed require triple the buffer of identical wetlands elsewhere in Ohio. The stated rationale of "alignment" does not constitute scientific justification for tripling regulatory burden on the lowest-value wetland category.

Section 3.5 - Development-Related Open Space (Pages 25-26)

Issue: While the BIA supports the 50% total open space requirement and appreciates the new allowance for offsite open space, the 1.5:1 ratio for offsite dedication increases the effective requirement to 62.5% total open space for developments fully utilizing offsite provisions.

BIA Request: Reduce the offsite multiplier from 1.5:1 to 1.25:1 to encourage greater use of this provision. A punitive multiplier may discourage developers from pursuing offsite conservation that could provide greater ecological connectivity benefits than fragmented on-site preservation. Strategic offsite acquisition of high-priority parcels identified by BDART or Metro Parks could deliver superior conservation outcomes compared to scattered on-site set-asides that may lack ecological connectivity.

Section 5.5.1.2 - Density Bonus Provisions (Page 49)

Issue: The density bonus structure is described conceptually but lacks specific triggering criteria. The document states jurisdictions "are encouraged to develop" bonus structures but provides no mandatory minimum standards, leaving developers unable to rely on density bonuses during project planning and land acquisition.

BIA Request: (1) Establish mandatory density bonus provisions that all Accord jurisdictions must adopt to ensure consistent, predictable treatment across the planning area. (2) Specify exact thresholds for earning bonuses (e.g., "exceeding minimum open space by 10% = 5% density bonus; stream restoration beyond requirements = 10% density bonus; achieving Net Zero Ready certification = 5% density bonus"). (3) Require jurisdictions to adopt density bonus ordinances within 180 days of plan adoption with BDART model language. Without mandatory, specific provisions with defined thresholds, the density bonus concept provides no reliable development incentive and cannot be factored into project feasibility analysis.

Section 7.5.3 - Developer Per Unit Contribution (Page 85)

Issue: The per-unit contribution of $2.00/sq ft residential (minimum $2,500/unit) and $2.50/sq ft commercial/industrial adds direct costs to every project in the planning area.

Impact: For a typical 2,000 sq ft home, this adds $4,000 to development costs that will ultimately be passed to homebuyers. For a 100-home development, this represents $400,000+ in fees before accounting for other Accord-related costs. This compounds with expanded buffer requirements, zero EIA infrastructure, and potential restoration obligations to significantly increase the cost premium for Darby-area housing.

BIA Request: (1) Reduce or eliminate per-unit contributions for developments meeting defined affordable housing thresholds (e.g., 20% of units affordable at 80% AMI). The Accord mission includes "a full spectrum of housing choice"—fee structures should not work against affordability goals. (2) Allow credit against per-unit fees for developments that exceed environmental requirements (stream restoration, extra open space, Net Zero Ready construction, etc.) to incentivize rather than merely mandate environmental performance. (3) Clarify relationship between this fee and other impact fees, tap fees, and exactions to enable accurate project cost estimation. (4) Keep current fee structure capped at $2,500 per unit.

Section 8.1 - Big Darby Accord Advisory Panel (Page 87)

Issue: The amendment references a "streamlined" BDAAP review process and acknowledges "the impact of development approval processes and timelines on housing affordability" (Development Benefits Summary, page 14) but provides no specific timelines, meeting schedules, or procedural improvements.

BIA Request: (1) Establish maximum review timeframes (e.g., 30 days for initial BDAAP review, 14 days for review of revised submissions). (2) Require BDAAP to meet at least monthly on a published schedule with submission deadlines. (3) Create a standardized checklist of required submittals so applicants know exactly what documentation is needed, reducing incomplete submissions and re-reviews. (4) Establish deemed-approved provisions if BDAAP fails to act within specified timeframes—accountability requires consequences for delay. (5) Clarify that BDAAP review runs concurrent with (not sequential to) jurisdiction staff review to reduce overall timeline. The current vague language regarding "streamlining" provides no accountability and no basis for tracking improvement.

Section 2.4.5.5 - Site-Level Water Quality Monitoring (Page 20)

Issue: Pre- and post-construction monitoring requirements specify that post-construction monitoring "must replicate the pre-construction plan using the same testing measures in the same locations three years after construction."

Impact: Professional water quality monitoring including biological assessments (IBI, ICI, QHEI, MIwb, geomorphic assessment) costs $15,000-$30,000 per comprehensive assessment. Requiring this three years post-construction means developers must maintain financial obligations, bonding, and site access arrangements years after project completion, final plat acceptance, and home sales. This creates ongoing liability and administrative burden that particularly affects smaller builders.

BIA Request: (1) Fund post-construction monitoring through the Darby Revenue Program rather than requiring individual developer obligations that extend years past project completion. This creates a consistent, professional monitoring program rather than fragmented developer-by-developer efforts. (2) Limit post-construction developer obligations to chemical parameters (TSS, N, P) as shown in the sample plan table, with biological assessments conducted by the watershed-level monitoring program. (3) Transfer all monitoring obligations to HOAs or jurisdictions upon final plat acceptance and warranty period completion, with monitoring costs incorporated into stormwater utility fees or similar ongoing funding mechanisms. (4) Alternatively, allow developers to satisfy post-construction obligations through a one-time payment to the WQM&A program.

Section 3 – Open Space

Issue: The amendment seeks to clarify and further define types of Open Space. It does not however provide clarity on what types of open space and amenities count towards the required open space.

BIA Request: Develop a list of specific types of open space in a typical community that counts towards open space calculations in the Big Darby Accord Planning Area. Examples include entry features, pocket parks, passive open space areas.

Section 5.6.3 – Growth Areas

Issue: Regarding annexation, the amendment states that “township growth areas may not be annexed without the approval of the township.” This is contrary to Ohio Annexation Law.

BIA Request: Clarify that annexation requests will be evaluated according to Annexation Law.

SUMMARY OF BIA REQUESTS

The Building Industry Association of Central Ohio respectfully requests the following modifications to achieve appropriate balance between environmental protection and housing affordability:

1. Maintain Ohio EPA minimum buffers (100' stream, 25'/75'/120' wetland by category) with enhanced buffers as recommendations or incentivized options rather than mandates, unless peer-reviewed scientific justification is provided for the Darby-specific increment.

2. Modify the zero EIA requirement to a maximum 10% EIA threshold with clearly defined technical infeasibility criteria and alternative compliance pathways for challenging soil conditions.

3. Establish objective, metric-based criteria for "ecologically degraded" determinations and cost-based thresholds for commercial feasibility, with mitigation banking and fee-in-lieu alternatives.

4. Reduce the offsite open space multiplier from 1.5:1 to 1.25:1 to incentivize strategic conservation land assembly.

5. Establish mandatory, specific density bonus provisions with defined thresholds that all jurisdictions must adopt within 180 days.

6. Create enforceable BDAAP timeline requirements with deemed-approved provisions and concurrent (not sequential) review processes.

7. Provide affordable housing exemptions or credits for per-unit fees to support the Accord's housing choice mission.

8. Transfer post-construction monitoring obligations to the watershed program, jurisdictions, or HOAs rather than maintaining multi-year developer liability.

9. Allow native prairie/meadow restoration as an alternative to forest establishment where development timelines make forest restoration infeasible.

10. Provide a list of the projects that make up the 6,100 units built or permitted in the Big Darby Accord Planning Area.

The BIA of Central Ohio and our member companies remain committed to responsible development in the Big Darby watershed. We have demonstrated this commitment through nearly two decades of building to Darby standards and contributing to open space protection. We believe the modifications outlined above will strengthen the Accord by making its requirements more predictable, scientifically grounded, and economically sustainable—ensuring that environmental protection and housing opportunity can advance together.

We appreciate the stakeholder meetings taking place and welcome ongoing opportunities to meet with BDART, jurisdiction staff, and other stakeholders to discuss these comments in detail and work toward consensus solutions. The BIA stands ready to participate constructively in the public open house planned for February 2026 and any additional stakeholder sessions.

Respectfully submitted,

Building Industry Association of Central Ohio

445 Hutchinson Avenue, Suite 280
Columbus, OH 43235
Tod Bowen, Executive Director
(614) 891-0575 x100
tod@biahomebuilders.com