Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-01-2026 Council Meeting MinutesRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO. 10148 Held July 1, 2026 20 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Amorose Groomes called the Wednesday, July 1, 2026 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present were Ms. Alutto, Mayor Amorose Groomes, Vice Mayor De Rosa, Ms. Johnson, Mr. Keeler, Ms. Kramb and Dr. Lam. Staff members present were Ms. O'Callaghan, Deputy Chief Tabernik, Mr. Hartmann, Mr. Rubino, Ms. Weisenauer, Mr. Earman, Ms. Rauch, Mr. Boggs, Mr. Barker, Mr. Gracia, Ms. Goehring, Ms. Blake, Ms. Hunter, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Willis, Mr. Ament, Ms. Uhl. Others present: Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Amorose Groomes invited Dr. Lam to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. CITIZEN COMMENTS Daniel Hammill, 5725 Trafalgar Lane, Dublin, spoke about the Link Ahead podcast as a resource for residents to learn about City affairs. He referenced a recent episode featuring Jack Nicklaus, who spoke about the Muirfield Village Golf Club's role in the growth of Dublin and praised the City's leadership for ensuring Dublin did not become sprawl. Mr. Hammill urged Council to keep that perspective in mind as votes are cast throughout the year. Deborah Crowell, 7015 Ballantrae Loop, Dublin, referenced the City's vision and mission statements, focusing specifically on the word "sustainable" and the commitment to providing the best quality of life and environment. She expressed interest in better understanding what sustainability means in practice as it relates to environmental impact. She raised a concern about the heat generated by paved surfaces replacing farmland and asked whether the City was considering green parking lot design and other environmentally sensitive approaches to development. Mayor Ambrose Groomes directed her to Ms. Blake to connect her with staff who could provide background on the City's sustainability commitments. CONSENT AGENDA e Minutes of the June 22, 2026 Regular Council Meeting Hearing no request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda, Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keeler, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Ms. Johnson, yes; Dr. Lam, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes. SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 35-26 Authorizing the Execution of a Real Estate Purchase and Sale Contract, a Property Reconveyance Escrow Agreement, and a Third Amendment to an Economic Development Agreement with The Ohio State University, on behalf of its Wexner Medical Center Ms. O'Callaghan presented the staff report, noting there were no changes to the ordinance since the first reading. She indicated that additional information had been provided as a follow-up to a question raised at the first reading and that staff recommended approval. There were no public comments. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO. 10148 ly1 Page 2 of 13 Held July 1, 2026 age 2 0 Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Kramb, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Dr. Lam, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Johnson, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes. Ordinance 34-26 Authorizing the City Manager to Accept Necessary Conveyance Documents on Behalf of the City of Dublin for a 0.22 Acre Right-of-Way Dedication from Wilcox-Tuttle Limited Partnership Mr. Hartmann noted that there have been no changes to this Ordinance since the first reading. Staff recommended approval. There were no public comments. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Johnson, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Dr. Lam, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes. Ordinance 33-26 Amendments to Zoning Code Section 153.002, 153.016, and 153.037-153.042 and 153.236 for the Removal of Data Centers as Permitted or Conditional Uses, the Creation of the ID-6, Research Transition District and the Amendment of Design Standards associated with ID-6 in the West Innovation District (WID), and the Creation of the West Innovation District Screening and Setback Design Manual (26-001ADMC) Ms. Rauch presented the staff report. She summarized the extensive process that led to the ordinance, which began with a rezoning request tabled by Council in August of the prior year, followed by targeted code amendment work involving public engagement, consultant collaboration, and multiple Planning and Zoning Commission reviews. The ordinance as presented reflects changes made in response to Council feedback at the June 8 reading, including refinements to the intent statement regarding biosafety levels, explicit removal of data centers from the use table, and clarification of the 90 percent opacity standard as a goal to be achieved through mounding and landscaping over a four-to-five- year maturation period. Ms. Rauch also provided additional information in response to prior Council questions, covering the types of development information the City would require of applicants — including acoustical data, emissions rates, environmental assessments, wastewater data, biosafety levels, and emergency response planning — as well as the role of the Administrative Review Team (ART) and the building standards and fire review process. Planning and Zoning Commission had previously recommended approval with two conditions, both of which were incorporated into the draft. Staff recommended approval. Public Comments: Kevin Hagerty, 5687 Wilcox Road, expressed concern about the environmental and quality- of-life impacts of data centers, including water use and potential groundwater contamination affecting well-water users, heat pollution, increased strain on the electrical grid, and noise from cooling fans. He noted his proximity to existing freeway noise and expressed concern for nearby residential neighborhoods, as well as the future Amtrak stop located near an existing data center. He expressed support for the ban on data centers in the West Innovation District and indicated he would support a broader citywide ban. Jennifer Hammill, 5725 Trafalgar Lane, addressed Ms. Kramb's comments from the June 8 meeting regarding the collaborative nature of the process. She acknowledged the work done on the buffer and landscaping standards but disputed the characterization of the process as genuinely collaborative. She stated that for the first twelve months, residents felt their concerns — including biohazards, safety, noise, lighting, air quality, waste containment, and hours of operation — were not reflected in the key themes staff presented to Planning and Zoning in January 2026. She noted that three significant provisions addressing biohazards, waste disposal, and quality control were added during a ten-minute recess at a Planning and Zoning meeting, and she questioned why those items could not have been incorporated earlier. She also noted that a specific request by Ms. Kramb to add noise emissions to the development plan application section had not been RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO, 10148 July 1, 2026 Held uly 1, Page 3 of 13 - included in the updated draft, and she asked Council to acknowledge the gap in the collaborative process rather than characterize it as a success. Sandy McIntosh, 5792 Trafalgar Lane, focused her comments on the enforceability of the intent language in ID-6. She asked Council to address specifically how the City would determine whether a development minimizes waste, hazardous inputs, hazardous byproducts, and stormwater discharges; how clean production principles — a term not defined in the code — would be interpreted and measured; and what baseline conditions had been established to allow future comparisons against the prohibition on measurable increases in hazardous emissions and noise, odor, glare, and dust. She argued that given the novelty and complexity of the undertaking, advanced manufacturing, research and development, and construction and contract services should be conditional rather than permitted uses, in order to provide Planning and Zoning Commission and the public an additional layer of review. Amy Swank, 5945 Vandeleur Place, stated that her singular ongoing request had been to keep children safe. She proposed four specific changes: making advanced manufacturing, research and development, and warehousing and distribution conditional rather than permitted uses, or alternatively deleting them; prohibiting releases of nitrogen oxides and other harmful emissions or establishing clear monitoring parameters; prohibiting toxic or hazardous raw inputs, byproducts, or finished goods or establishing enforceable limits; and defining a specific standard for when distribution qualifies as only an accessory use. She noted that the Ballantrae community contains 979 homes and referenced the signature thresholds required to place a charter amendment on the ballot or to initiate a recall process, framing that information as context for the seriousness of resident concerns. Victoria McDonald, 5642 Tynecastle Loop, stated that residents’ expectations for thoughtful planning and protection of quality of life had not been fully considered despite extensive engagement. She argued that industrial zoning is incompatible with residential and recreational development and that the risks outweigh any financial benefit, noting that Dublin had generated over 118 million dollars in income tax revenue in 2025 without industrial zoning. She expressed concern that the City's response to detailed code questions had been disproportionately focused on visual buffering and landscaping, characterizing this as an instance of the "law of triviality," in which discussion gravitates toward comfortable, tangible topics while more substantive issues go unresolved. She thanked Council Member Johnson for asking concrete, quantitative questions at the June 8 meeting. Tim Myers, 5845 Glendavon Court, acknowledged progress in the code language but stated that residents still did not feel safe. He expressed particular concern about compliance mechanisms for hazardous raw materials and inputs during the iterative processes of innovative manufacturing that may not be routinely recorded or checked. He also quoted directly from the City's sustainability plan, including its commitment to being the most sustainable global city of choice, its framework for inclusive and equitable action, and its economic goal to encourage environmentally friendly businesses, buildings, and technology. He questioned how those commitments aligned with a likely affirmative vote on ID-6. Kelly Weber, 6596 Ballantrae Place, described her twenty-five-year history as a Ballantrae resident and her deep investment in the community and the City of Dublin. She stated she had never imagined that an area adjacent to a golf course community where children ride bikes and families walk would face the possibility of industrial development and large semi- truck traffic. She acknowledged the City's need for growth and revenue but asked Council to protect the character, safety, and quality of life of established neighborhoods and to vote no on the rezoning. Matt Langhals, 5783 Trafalgar Lane, drew a comparison to Marysville, Ohio, where an industrial park was deliberately sited several miles from residential neighborhoods. He noted that even with years of careful planning, Marysville encountered unintended consequences, particularly the financial strain placed on its school district due to the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO. 10148 July 1, 2026 Page 4 of 13 Held 20 combination of tax abatements for incoming businesses and an influx of apartment housing that increased student enrollment without generating proportionate property tax revenue. He warned that Dublin should be mindful of similar downstream consequences. Ms. Alutto acknowledged the competing frustrations she had heard — that the process took too long and also that it did not take long enough — and observed that compromise is rarely a perfect outcome for any party. She asked Ms. Rauch to speak to how the City would evaluate future development applications against the code's intent, particularly with respect to hazardous emissions and other measurable criteria. Ms. Rauch explained that staff would require applicants to submit documentation demonstrating compliance with the relevant standards, drawing on expertise from planning, building standards, the fire department, and outside consultants as needed. She confirmed that ongoing inspections by the fire department and building department would continue after occupancy, and that code enforcement would respond to complaints. Ms. Alutto further asked how compliance findings or violations would be communicated to the surrounding community, given the high level of resident interest. Ms. Rauch noted that existing practice is to communicate directly with the individual complainant and to pursue voluntary compliance, but acknowledged that additional communication protocols could be explored. Ms. Alutto stated she had some concern about the breadth of administrative discretion afforded to the Administrative Review Team (ART) under a purely permitted-use framework and asked whether that body could elevate applications to Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Rauch confirmed that the "kick-up" provision already exists in the code, allowing ART to forward applications it deems to have greater community impact. Ms. Johnson stated that while she acknowledged the process had produced a better outcome than existed a year prior, she remained concerned that the code still lacked clear, enforceable, and measurable protections around potentially impactful uses such as advanced manufacturing. She expressed particular concern about making advanced manufacturing a permitted rather than conditional use at this early stage, before the City has developed experience with these applications. She suggested that starting with conditional use status — and potentially moving back to permitted use as knowledge and experience accumulate — could provide an important protection. She also asked how baseline measurement and enforcement guidelines could be built into the process on a development-by-development basis. Ms. Kramb reiterated that it is not possible to enumerate every future use or standard in the code at this stage, and that baseline studies — analogous to traffic studies — would be the appropriate mechanism for addressing noise, air quality, and similar concerns at the time of each application. She made a specific request that noise be added to the development plan application requirements in Section D1B of the code, alongside the existing provision on hazardous emissions, so that a noise study would be a required submission where applicable. She also raised a concern about the opacity language, noting that while she appreciated the explanatory memo, the code still contained a reference to a 90 percent opacity goal, and that the buffer study itself referenced opacity percentages of 75 percent, 90 percent, and 100 percent in different sections without consistently qualifying the figure as a goal or specifying the measurement conditions. She suggested that the numerical figure might be better referenced solely in the buffer study, and that the buffer study should be reviewed to ensure consistent language across all sections. Mr. Will confirmed that consistent application of goal language throughout the buffer study could be accomplished, and explained that the high opacity figure is achievable in part because earthen mounding — rather than plantings alone — contributes to opacity calculations from street level. Dr. Lam thanked residents for their continued engagement and apologized to those who felt unheard during the first twelve months of the process. He stated that safety is his primary concern and that the ID-6 amendments — including the elimination of biosafety levels 3 and 4 and the prohibition on data centers — meaningfully address that concern. He expressed confidence in the tiered review framework, including Ohio Building Code compliance, annual fire inspections, OSHA oversight, and Ohio EPA requirements as ongoing layers of protection. He acknowledged that clean production principles remain somewhat aspirational in the code and asked Ms. Rauch to explain the reasoning behind RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO, 10148 Held July 1, 2026 Page 5 of 13 that approach. Ms. Rauch explained that clean production principles appear in the intent statements of other WID districts and are not a defined use category, but rather a descriptor of the operational approach expected of users, which would be further evaluated through the development plan checklist items. Dr. Lam expressed support for Ms. Kramb's request to add noise to the development plan submission requirements. Mr. Keeler thanked residents for their participation and agreed that safety, clear policies, and enforceable standards are shared goals. He acknowledged the difficulty of prescribing standards in advance of knowing what types of development will come forward, and noted that advanced manufacturing facilities are also subject to oversight from the Ohio EPA and other external regulatory bodies on an ongoing basis. He observed that nothing in the code is permanent and that Council regularly revisits and updates code as circumstances evolve. He expressed support for moving forward while remaining open to refinement. Vice Mayor De Rosa thanked residents for their candor and acknowledged that the feedback received had informed the process. She cited the intent statement's provision that all development shall not result in adverse impacts to surrounding properties as the central accountability standard, and committed to holding the city to that intent. She noted the City's ongoing work on sustainability principles and affirmed that Council would hold itself to those commitments. She expressed support for adding noise to the development plan application requirements if it would not conflict with the existing noise ordinance, and emphasized the City's practice of consulting outside experts when staff expertise is insufficient. Mayor Amorose Groomes expressed support for Ms. Kramb's noise proposal, specifically suggesting that a noise study — including ambient and high-activity measurements — be submitted with development applications, and that the City engage expert consultants to help interpret those studies in the context of proximity to residences. She also expressed support for clarifying the opacity standard to make clear that it applies both horizontally and vertically. She acknowledged the challenge of communication throughout the process and expressed gratitude for the community's engagement, noting that Dublin's practice of visiting companies regularly provides an important ongoing monitoring function. Ms. Alutto confirmed she supported both the noise addition and the opacity clarification. Ms. Rauch confirmed that noise language could be added and indicated that staff would engage consultant support in advance of the first development review in order to avoid delays. Vote on the Ordinance: Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Johnson, no; Dr. Lam, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes. ADDITIONAL READING/PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE Ordinance 06-25 (Amended) Rezoning Approximately 370 Acres Located within the West Innovation District from R, Rural District, to ID-6, Research Transition District, ID-2, Research Flex District and ID-3, Research Assembly District (Case 25-0082) Ms. Rauch presented the staff report. She noted that this ordinance was originally tabled by Council in August of the prior year to allow for the targeted code amendment work addressed in Ordinance 33-26. The ordinance covers nine parcels totaling approximately 370 acres with frontage on Cosgray, Shier Rings, Houchard, and Rings roads. The future land use recommendations in the Envision Dublin Community Plan guided the proposed zoning designations: ID-6 for parcels east of the railroad tracks adjacent to Cosgray Road, given their proximity to residential development; ID-2 for parcels in the Rings Road area consistent with the flex innovation future land use designation; and ID-3 for parcels west of the rail consistent with the industrial future land use designation. All nine parcels are currently zoned Rural, the default base zoning applied upon annexation. Ms. Rauch summarized property ownership across the parcels and noted that recent conversations with property owners had revealed varying positions. The owners of the Buck and Basireddy properties expressed concern about the ID-6 designation and a preference for residential zoning, which staff noted does not align with the future land use RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO, 10148 July 1, 2026 Page 6 of 13 Held 20 map. The Whitmer and JJK/Tzagournis property owners expressed concern that application of ID-6 west of the tracks would further limit their development potential. Ms. Rauch also referenced the West Innovation District Integrated Implementation Strategy (WIDIIS) and the near- and mid-term infrastructure requirements needed for development to proceed, including new street connections, Cosgray sewer main extension, Shier Rings improvements, and the four-lane modernization of Cosgray Road. Staff recommended approval. Ms. Weisenauer read the following public comments into the record: Kara Hoewischer, 5626 Alderbrook Drive, Dublin, wrote: As a Ballantrae resident, I am writing to request City Council vote to have the entire WID area zoned ID-6. So much time and collaboration has been put in to get to this point. The amendments made to ID-6 make sense to have the whole area east and west of tracks zoned to this. This will ensure all residents are kept safe from industrial concerns. Please vote to keep Dublin green, safe, and a great place to live for all. Thank you Angela Griffin, 5559 Kinvarra Lane, Dublin, wrote: After the many months of working toward a new ID 6 Code that would protect the residents of Ballantrae from potential harmful impacts of Industrial uses, I am baffled how anyone would think it would be acceptable to zone the parcels west of the railroad tracks differently. Much of that land is literally closer to many homes in Ballantrae, Amlin, and in the backyards of families on Houchard Road. Splitting these parcels to rezone as ID2 & 3 is simply shameful. Why are the interests of a couple “potential” land owners given more weight than the hundreds of actual land owners in the area? Please put people over profits, keep our community safe, and do the right thing when voting tonight. Zone all the land east and west of the tracks as the new ID6 classification. Matthew Connolly, 6000 Houchard Road, Dublin wrote: My name is Matt Connolly, and I live at 6000 Houchard Road. I am writing to voice my concerns regarding the current zoning strategy west of the railroad tracks. I urge the City to please replace the proposed ID-3 classification with the same ID-6 Research Transition District designation on Cosgray for Houchard Road residents. Allowing the high-intensity industrial uses permitted in ID3 directly adjacent to our homes introduces an unacceptable risk of toxic stormwater runoff. oil and chemical residues from these unknown facilities can easily migrate into the soil, seep into the shared water table, and permanently poison the aquifers feeding our household wells. This is a direct and irreversible threat to the health and safety of our families. Houchard Rd is now entirely dependent on the leadership of Dublin City Council to protect our health and environment. Again- I ask the city to please prioritize human health and safety by extending ID-6 protections to all residential parcels along Houchard Road. Dublin-Please do not sacrifice the residents of Houchard Rd. Heavy industrial does not belong in close proximity to residential. Emphasis on preservation of human health and safety should be the city’s primary obligation. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Todd Hemmert, 5824 Houchard Road, Dublin wrote: Our names are Todd and Denis Hemmert and we reside at 5824 Houchard road. As an engineers we enjoy facts, logic and must importantly numbers because they do not lie. Logic requires you to question and ask why to understand the facts. Why would the city and the community plan designate ID3 for Houchard road when there are already 100 acres of single family homes already there? How does industrial application impact safety? From the Lexus Nexus data there is a 1 mile radius around Grove City for industrial area and it shows a 684% increase in crime when compared to a 1 mile radius around the golf club of Dublin. Why would Dublin City put peoples’ lives in danger? How will heavy manufacturing and assembly, warehouse distribution, and power generation and substation impact both Houchard road and Ballantrae residents’ health and wellbeing? Simple answer is you cannot find industrial application 150 feet away from residential in United States -- the risk is too high -- water, air, noise, and light pollution for starters. Can you imagine living 150 feet away from a 24 hour warehouse and distribution center with more than a 100 loading docks? Worst yet a nuclear power plant also known as a SMR RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO. 10148 July 1, 2026 Page 7 of 13 Held 20 (small modular reactor) which are being installed for the data centers. Why does a reduction of -17% property value make sense when in the past it was increasing every 3 years more than 25%? This is data found on the Union County Auditors website for a rural community off Industrial Parkway that is now surrounded by industrial application. If there are so many companies looking for space in Dublin why is the Command Akon building sitting open for the past 6 months? How many other buildings are sitting open in Dublin? Why did Command Akon leave? Their 10 year TIF ran out and the day it did, they left. The City must need the economic benefit of Industrial application. Why would the city be chasing warehouse & distribution and manufacturing & assembly jobs that pay $17 per hour? We asked the City for the data behind the community plan. It took months because the City did not have the data, only the consultants had the data. After combing through the excel files here is the high level. The City will spend $1.1B for a return of $1.2B over 25 years. This is a 0.3% return per year. Sounds like an extremely low Return on your Investment and most corporations would never approve a business case like this. Why would you? When the city surveyed and received feedback from the residents, some of the landowners were loud and clear opposing ID3 preferring Residential. We were told residential does not make sense next to a railroad track as the City would only get $200 of $10,000 property tax and potentially increase strain of the roads. The city has had surplus of funds due to several factors. But the US Bureau of Labor show that 50% of Bachelor degree and Higher work from home. So if you had 100 homes at $1M and assuming $250K income this would result in $500K per year. 370 acres will support more than double that. As for the traffic increase data from the Institute of Transportation the engineers shows that R&D has a +27% higher than single family homes. Office buildings are 51% higher than single family homes. Finally, to address your concern around the train noise, which is only 50db from 500 ft away and only passes a few times a day when compared to a highway that is constant 50db from a mile away. We requested a quite zone be created to eliminate the train horns. A year ago, the City of Dublin being one of the three municipalities to review the quiet zone. To my knowledge this process has not started. The WID mission statement " Establish a world-class innovation and research district that serves as an economic engine for Dublin. Communities that provide a balance of live -work- play.” What is innovated about a warehouse & distribution center? Manufacturing and Assembly are not innovated either. How are Nuclear Power plants or a substation enhancing Dublin’s reputation? Why has Houchard road residents not been discussed at any of the P&Z and City Council meetings? This past January the City issued a memo that the West side of the tracks was not going to be rezoned and only the east side was being studied for ID6. This was extremely misleading. So every time we discussed our concern on Houchard it was simply dismissed as not part of the agenda. 47 Houchard road residents signed a request to change the parcel on Houchard road from ID3/ID2 to ID6. All nearly 75 residents on Houchard Road matter and have the same concerns as Ballantrae and actually are at higher risk due to we are on well water. The Washington Trustees also agree with the residents and signed and submitted a letter to Dublin City to change the zoning from ID3/2 to ID6. In summary the numbers do not lie. The health, safety, quality of life and property values do not support ID3/ID2 on Houchard road. The WID mission statement including live, work and play does not support ID3/ID2. Residential does not work for the City the only logical result is ID6 which is not perfect but, better than ID3 and has a higher return on investment with much lower risk to the existing residents on Houchard and Ballantrae. Please do the right thing. Thank you. Theresa Collins, 5619 Tynecastle Loop, Dublin wrote: While the City cites economic development goals as the reason for the West Innovation District rezoning, I have seen no credible evidence of the claimed positive economic impacts—despite 14 months of repeated resident requests for that information. I strongly oppose placing ID-2 (Research Flex) and ID-3 (Research Assembly) zoning directly adjacent to existing residential properties. These districts permit uses that carry clear and unacceptable risks of groundwater contamination—especially for homes on private well systems. It is deeply disappointing that City staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and certain Council members continue to downplay or overlook these vulnerabilities. Homes along Houchard Road and in nearby areas—many outside Dublin’s current boundaries—are being treated with little to no regard for the potential impacts on RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Minutes of Meeting GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO. 10148 July 1, 2026 Page 8 of 13 Held 20 residents’ health and safety. The pattern of City land acquisitions and annexations along Houchard Road, visible on the Dubscovery map, suggests a strategy that could effectively squeeze out or devalue these neighboring properties through incompatible surrounding development. Furthermore, the City has a clear obligation to coordinate with Washington Township and local fire departments before rezoning parcels west of the railroad tracks. Proceeding with higher-intensity uses without a thorough analysis of the added strain on emergency response resources is irresponsible and shows a blatant lack of consideration for neighboring jurisdictions—a pattern that has become all too common from Dublin. The decisions being made for Dublin's southwest corner have significant consequences for Hilliard Schools students and Washington Township residents, who have no vote or representation in this process. These impacts demand far greater transparency, accountability, and genuine deliberation. I would urge Council to table the rezoning and fully address all of the considerations residents have raised. However, it is clear from the June 26 communication that a vote will occur without prioritizing truly compatible transitional uses that protect existing residents on all sides of the proposed development boundaries. Bob Curtis, 5903 Newbridge Drive, Dublin wrote: Dublin Planning and Zoning Commissioner Kim Way is a Principal at NBBJ. He also served as a member of the Steering Committee for the Envision Dublin Community Plan. At the same time that the Envision Dublin Steering Committee was recommending major zoning and thoroughfare changes to Dublin’s West Innovation District (WID), NBBJ submitted a proposal for a $900 million project located within the WID. This project requires rezoning to come to fruition. It also requires the widening of Cosgray Rd. to accommodate the significant increase in traffic the development will create. I know Kim Way recuses himself from items that obviously involve Cosgray Commons, NBBJ, but there are still conflicts he should be recusing himself from. There are 5 potential points of conflict that either have occurred or are continuing to occur: * Conflict 1: Kim Way's participation as the P&Z representative on the Steering Committee, which influenced Future Land Use of the Cosgray Commons parcels. * Conflict 2: Kim Way's participation as the P&Z representative on the Steering Committee, which influenced the design of the Mixed Use — Center category (the Future Land Use of the Cosgray Commons parcels). * Conflict 3: Kim Way's participation in Planning & Zoning Commission Case 24-019ADMO (Envision Dublin Plan) which officially changed the Future Land Use of the Cosgray Commons parcels (from ID-2 to Mixed Use — Center) and rezoned additional parcels along the Cosgray Rd. thoroughfare to industrial uses. * Conflict 4: Kim Way's influence in designing the Envision Dublin Thoroughfare Plan, which is based on Future Land Use models, as the P&Z representative on the Steering Committee. * Conflict 5: Kim Way continues to influence.zoning decisions along the Cosgray Rd. corridor to the benefit of NBBJ and the Cosgray Commons project-such as the change of Zoning from Rural to ID-2 for the Farms at Cosgray property—which ultimately reduces Cosgray Commons’ portion of the costs to widen the Cosgray Rd corridor. Deb Langhals, 5783 Trafalgar Lane, Dublin wrote: I attended the Regular Council Meeting on June 22, 2026. During the reading of Ordinance 33-26, I couldnt help but think “Congratulations, you've succeeded in developing a very lovey shade of orange lipstick with which to adorn your WID Pig. The Pig that your constituents have repeatedly and clearly stated that we DO NOT want. Last year, someone official stated that Dublin had looked at several other cities where industrial, commercial and residential zoning co-exist. Two of those were Greenville,SC, and New Albany, OH. I lived in Greenville, SC for 12 years prior to moving to Columbus. My parents and sister still live there and it’s our favorite place to visit. This is largely because they've accomplished a massive redevelopment in the major regions, created a downtown oasis that attracts tens of thousands of visitor annually, have been thoughtful in their planning and maintenance while managing to preserve Greenville’s historic character. Most importantly, they've protected their residents’ quality of life, real estate investments and future. New Albany is another story. I’ve worked at a medical facility in New Albany for RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO, 10148 July 1, 2026 Page 9 of 13 Held 20 nearly 5 years and still cannot understand why anyone would want to live there. The problems that rapid industrial and commercial expansion have brought to the residents and businesses is truly astounding. The infrastructure cannot support the increased demand which has resulted in frequent power outages, power surges, utility disruptions, constant traffic jams and more accidents than I care to count. The last power surge that was unrelated to a storm caused over $30k in damages to our HVAC system. I wish I could say that was a first and I know it won’ be the last. Sadly, Dublin is beginning to resemble New Albany in terms traffic and insufficient infrastructure. We already cannot easily or safely get out of Ballentrae onto Cosgray and the 33 / 270 interchange is a near constant disaster. I generally avoid going anywhere in Dublin because of traffic. Many areas of Dublin under the city’s management are beginning to look run down and neglected, I question the wisdom in adding more when it appears to be a struggle to maintain what already exists. The proposed rezoning is going to make these problems worse in addition to the myriad other negative things that have been presented to Council. I’m still waiting to hear the reason that this should proceed other than “It’s part of the Envision Dublin Plan”. As many other residents have asked, what is driving this dog on bone mentality that this must proceed, no matter what? I urge you not to approve the rezoning as the people most affected by this have requested. Visit Greenville, SC with me and see how it should be done. In-Person Public Comment: Daniel Hammill, 5725 Trafalgar Lane, addressed a specific question to each Council member who planned to vote yes on the rezoning. He asked Ms. Kramb how outcomes would have differed had residents been involved from the beginning; asked Mr. Keeler why high-density housing proposals near Ballantrae are acceptable if residential development is characterized as insufficient from a tax revenue standpoint; asked Ms. Alutto how she reconciles the balance between resident concerns and the proposed rezoning; asked Dr. Lam how locating hazardous materials near Ballantrae is acceptable given his stated concern; asked Vice Mayor De Rosa how the City will ensure that good intentions will not go wrong; and asked Mayor Amorose Groomes how the rezoning reflects a model democracy when both residents and at least one property owner are against it. Jennifer Hammill, 5725 Trafalgar Lane, asked for a thank you rather than an apology when it comes to the rezoning decision, given that residents have effectively been asked to accept industrial development adjacent to their homes for the City's financial benefit. She noted that the City's own studies and hired experts recommended against placing industrial buildings next to residential areas, and she referenced prior positions taken by PZC Chair Kim Way. She argued that there are other available locations within the WID near highways where industrial uses could be sited instead. She noted that homes on Trafalgar, Barrensmore, and Newtonmore — those most directly adjacent to Cosgray Road — have appreciated at approximately 4 percent compared to a citywide average of 10 percent, and characterized the differential as a real financial cost being borne by those residents. Sandy McIntosh, 5792 Trafalgar Lane, stated that hundreds of residents have consistently opposed industrial uses adjacent to residential areas over fourteen months, and that the City's own economic development study from 2023 reached the same conclusion. She cited a statement by the City Manager earlier in 2026 that the only acceptable nonresidential land use adjacent to residential areas is offices, and she contrasted that statement with the current proposal. She urged Council to vote no on the rezoning entirely, and at a minimum to vote no on the ID-2 and ID-3 designations west of the railroad tracks, arguing that none of the protective changes developed for ID-6 have been applied to ID-2 and ID-3, and that the parcels west of the tracks are in some cases even closer to residences. She noted that Washington Township trustees had submitted a written request to apply ID-6 protections to parcels west of the tracks and that this request was not referenced in the Council packet. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO, 10148, July 1, 2026 Page 10 of 13 Held 20 Amy Swank, 5945 Vandeleur Place, stated that she wanted to ensure the record reflected eight specific facts before the vote. She noted that ID-3 would permit smokestacks directly adjacent to Darree Fields; that Washington Township trustees requested ID-6 zoning for parcels west of the railroad in a June 7 letter that was not referenced in the Council packet; that City Manager O'Callaghan signed a nondisclosure agreement with a data center developer on February 1, 2024, at which time no properties south of Shier Rings were under consideration for industrial use, and that the Envision Dublin Plan changed at that moment to accommodate that request; that the City's own economic development plan does not extend the WID beyond Shier Rings and expressly states that office is the only appropriate use adjacent to residential; that City Manager O'Callaghan wrote in February 2026 that the only acceptable uses adjacent to residential are clearly defined transitional uses such as office, medical, or low-intensity commercial; that staff estimates of tax revenue from the rezoning are negligible; that the ordinance has procedural flaws including failures to send required notices; and that on May 21, City Manager O'Callaghan wrote that the parcels west of the railroad would be revisited and provided a map labeling them as not included in the rezoning, only to recommend their inclusion five weeks later. Matt Langhals, 5783 Trafalgar Lane, identifying himself as a licensed attorney, raised the conflict-of-interest concern about Commissioner Kim Way that had been detailed in the written comment submitted by Bob Curtis. He urged Council to investigate the matter seriously, stating that if a steering committee member with ties to a 900-million-dollar project in the WID had influenced zoning decisions, the City would be exposed to significant legal liability. Tim Myers, 5845 Glendavon Court, stated that ID-2 and ID-3 code language had never received the same level of resident scrutiny or collaborative revision as ID-6, and argued that the passage of a robust ID-6 code should now serve as the baseline standard against which ID-2 and ID-3 should be measured and improved. He expressed frustration that Houchard Road residents had been effectively excluded from the conversation and characterized their treatment as disrespectful. Tara Rowe, 5749 Trafalgar Lane, recounted her twenty-two-year history as a Ballantrae resident and noted that the area east of the railroad tracks had previously been considered for a 55-plus residential community before Planning and Zoning stopped it. She questioned the conflict-of-interest concerns raised regarding Commissioner Way and expressed that the rezoning appeared arbitrary and capricious. She asked Council to vote no and stated that ID-6, while still too close to residents, would be preferable to ID-3 or ID-2 on the west side of the tracks. Richard Weeks, 5826 Houchard Road, stated that Houchard Road residents feel treated as though they do not matter and characterized the process as one designed to make it as ‘difficult as possible for them to remain. He noted that some residents on Houchard Road would lose their homes as a result of infrastructure improvements associated with the development, and asked Council to at minimum consider applying ID-6 to both sides of the tracks. Vice Mayor De Rosa expressed appreciation for the candor of the comments received. She acknowledged the decades-long history of planning for the West Innovation District and the comprehensive work represented by the Envision Dublin Community Plan and the WIDIIS. She stated her support for moving forward with the rezoning as a continuation of that long-standing framework. She also expressed support for reviewing the ID-2 and ID-3 code as part of the City's ongoing zoning code update process, noting that continuous improvement is the appropriate mechanism for addressing the concerns raised. Mr. Keeler stated his support for the rezoning, acknowledging property owners' legitimate interest in maximizing the marketability of their land. He also agreed that additional attention to ID-2 and ID-3 code language is warranted and noted the City's need for revenue to fund infrastructure improvements, including the widening of Cosgray Road. Dr. Lam stated his support for the rezoning, noting that it protects long-term competitiveness and supports necessary infrastructure. He acknowledged that comments RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO, 10148 ly 1, 202 Held July 1, 2026 Page 11 of 13 20 received during the meeting had moved him toward supporting a future review of ID-2 and ID-3 code language to address safety concerns. Ms. Kramb stated her support for moving forward with the rezoning as planned in the Community Plan, observing that the decision not to zone the WID for residential uses was made through the Community Plan process. She acknowledged the question about whether earlier resident involvement would have changed outcomes, stating that it would likely have produced better decisions as more information generally does, but that the Community Plan decision had been made and the City had been moving forward accordingly. She expressed strong support for revisiting the ID-2 and ID-3 code language over the coming year, noting that the parcels west of the tracks are the last area likely to be developed and that there is time to do that work. She also noted that portions of the WID to the north already carry ID-3 zoning, meaning the proposed designations are consistent with existing conditions in adjacent areas. Ms. Johnson stated she could not support the rezoning. She acknowledged that heavy industrial applications do not belong next to residential areas, and stated that this remains her position. She expressed confidence in her colleagues and in staff to work to get future development right, and asked residents to continue their advocacy with decency and mutual respect. Ms. Alutto stated she has a level of support for the rezoning and voted in favor of the ID-6 code as a recognition of the hard-fought collaborative process. She noted that her struggle has been less with the substance of the zoning designations and more with aspects of the process — specifically, whether communications and intentions were consistently clear and understood by all parties. She stated that she does not believe any miscommunications were intentional, but acknowledged that things were lost in translation and that the process was not one she had encountered in her tenure on Council. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated her support for the rezoning and for incorporating the ID- 2 and ID-3 code review into the ongoing citywide zoning code update. She noted the importance of not rendering existing development in those districts nonconforming and expressed her expectation that the ART will approach early applications with caution and will use the kick-up provision as needed. Vote on the Ordinance: Dr. Lam, yes; Ms. Alutto, no; Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Johnson, no; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes. Following the vote, Ms. Johnson made a motion requesting that the City Manager initiate a review of the ID-2 and ID-3 code within the West Innovation District, building upon the input received from residents and stakeholders and the lessons learned from the development of the ID-6 code, with any recommendations to be returned to Council for consideration. The motion further requested that the City Manager provide Council with a proposed process and timeline for the review shortly after Council's return from recess. Mayor Amorose Groomes seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Johnson, yes; Dr. Lam, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING/VOTE — RESOLUTIONS Resolution 30-26 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with Dublin City Schools for the School Resource Officer Program Deputy Chief Tabernik presented the staff report, noting that the upcoming school year marks the 28th year of the School Resource Officer (SRO) program in Dublin. Full-time SROs are assigned to each Dublin high school and middle school, with middle school officers also supporting elementary schools. He described the SROs as serving in capacities extending well beyond law enforcement, including as educators, mentors, counselors, and problem solvers. Programming for the upcoming year will include collaborative school RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO. 10148 July 1, 2026 Page 12 of 13 Held safety planning, youth-focused traffic and micro-mobility education, mental health awareness initiatives, and participation in multidisciplinary threat assessment teams. Deputy Chief Tabernik credited ongoing dialogue between the Police Department, Dublin City Schools leadership, and the community as central to the program's continued effectiveness and recommended approval of Resolution 30-26. There were no public comments. Mayor Amorose Groomes asked Deputy Chief Tabernik to convey Council's gratitude to the SROs for the meaningful relationships they build with students. Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Johnson, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Dr. Lam, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. O'Callaghan offered the following comments: e She invited residents to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Dublin Community Recreation Center at a member appreciation event on July 22 and a free community celebration on September 13 from 1:00 to 4:00 PM. e She noted that the Independence Day celebration would begin Saturday morning with the fishing derby at Avery Park, followed by the annual parade led by Grand Marshal John Witt, and conclude in the evening with a performance by The Wallflowers and a fireworks finale simulcast on Sunny 95 beginning at 9:50 PM. e She also announced that the Dublin Irish Festival would begin Thursday, July 30, with a 5K run and kids dash, followed by the festival dedication Friday evening at Kaufman Park. Top sponsors for the festival include: The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Guinness, Riverside Bank of Dublin, Amazon, Molson Coors, OhioHealth, and Wendy's. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Ms. Kramb recognized Dublin resident Yash Babar, a rising junior at Coffman High School and Eagle Scout, who organized a repair cafe at the recreation center on June 27. The event drew approximately 75 pre-registered participants and nearly twice that number in walk-ins, with residents bringing household items ranging from small appliances to clothing for repair by volunteer craftspeople. Ms. Kramb described the event as exceptionally well-organized, environmentally meaningful, and worthy of continuation. She also noted that she and Vice Mayor De Rosa attended a reception for new Dublin Food Pantry Director Brian Ott. . Vice Mayor De Rosa expressed gratitude to city staff on behalf of Council as the City enters its summer recess, acknowledging the significant work required to produce the community events and programs occurring over the next thirty days. Mayor Amorose Groomes reported on several recent engagements, including a meeting with the Community Shelter Board, a site visit with South College representatives regarding their new nursing program, a sponsorship interview, and a hosting event for honorary Consul General Mark Owens and a group of nursing students from Derry, Ireland, who were participating in an exchange program with The Ohio State University. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO, 10148. July 1, 2026 Page 13 of 13 Held 20 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m. J. 4. =~ Mayor — Presiding Officer Clerk of CG ncil