City Council members in Kent, Ohio, spent more than two hours Thursday hearing public comment and a developer presentation on a request to rezone two South Side parcels — including the former Davey Drill site — from industrial to R‑3 high‑density residential zoning. Developers said the rezoning is needed to attract investment and to justify the additional environmental cleanup that would be required to support residential use. Longstanding industrial property owners, manufacturing employers and neighbors urged the council to keep the site industrial, citing rail access, recent industrial investment and public‑safety concerns.

The zoning map amendment request was presented by Jake Shields of Great Box Cap Capital, who said his company and its partners have experience redeveloping difficult, formerly industrial sites and that the parcels, which touch downtown and a commercial district to the north, are “a wonderful residential opportunity” that could bring 100–200 new residents within walking distance of downtown. Shields and his consultant team reviewed reporting by Brownfield Restoration Group and said a residential cleanup, while more extensive and more expensive than the current grant scope, would be accepted by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency if carried out under the state’s Voluntary Action Plan process.

The debate focused on two linked questions: whether a developer should be allowed to rezone before paying for the larger cleanup that residential uses would require, and whether changing the zoning would undercut existing industrial businesses that have invested millions of dollars in the South Side corridor. Several speakers who identified themselves as owners or managers of businesses adjacent to the site said rezoning would create land‑use conflict, could limit industrial operations, and risk jobs and local tax revenue.

“We strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of the parcels in discussion from industrial to highest density residential,” said Travis Copeland, owner of Copen Machine, who described roughly $50 million in recent private investment in manufacturing in the South End and warned that residential encroachment could lead to operational restrictions for existing businesses. Todd Packer, a nearby resident, asked council to “maintain the industrial zoning designation for the area under discussion in general and in particular until we know the results of the remediation of that area.”

Speakers who supported rezoning emphasized the site’s proximity to downtown and argued that new housing could support nearby businesses. Developer representatives said the site currently is targeted by a Brownfield grant to reach industrial/commercial cleanup standards; Shields said additional cleanup to residential standards would be “on our dime” only after a rezoning and additional approvals, and argued that without rezoning banks and the land‑bank partner were unlikely to commit matching funds. Transcript materials distributed at the meeting said the bank’s match for the state brownfield grant would be about $435,000; the developer and land‑bank materials cite a $1.3 million grant for remediation steps to commercial/industrial standards and estimated that getting to residential standards could require removing roughly 506,593 square feet of contaminated soil versus 81,385 square feet to achieve industrial/commercial standards.

City staff explained a third option: the zoning code allows an overlay district (chapter 11.04) that would leave the underlying industrial zoning in place and add conditions to an overlay that must be met before residential rules would apply. Staff and council discussed using an overlay to require a No Further Action letter and a covenant not to sue from the Ohio EPA — the state documents that ordinarily conclude a VAP cleanup — as a condition for activating residential permissions. Planning staff cautioned that the assessment and cleanup steps to prove residential safety would require a licensed certified professional and could be a lengthy and costly process.

After questions from council and public comment from roughly two dozen speakers — including residents, historic‑preservation advocates and industrial employers — Councilmember Gwen (motioner) asked city administration to explore the viability and drafting of an overlay district with remediation conditions. The council voted to have staff research an overlay and return with feasibility and drafting guidance. Later in the meeting, the council voted to uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous recommendation not to rezone the parcels.

No rezoning or site‑specific development approval was adopted. The council’s instruction to staff directs city attorneys and planners to draft options for an overlay that would keep industrial zoning in place unless or until remediation criteria are satisfied and the city could also contemplate other conditions (timelines, escrow agreements, site‑plan obligations) to protect existing businesses and future residents. Staff said any overlay language would be developed with consultation from certified environmental professionals and the land‑bank and would be subject to further public hearings before any binding land‑use change occurred.

What happens next: the land‑bank/owner remains responsible for the brownfield cleanup application and the match escrow; staff will report back on whether an overlay district can be written to tie residential permissions to an Ohio EPA NFA/CNS or equivalent remedies. If the land‑bank or owner executes the match escrow and remediation proceeds under the VAP, any future rezoning or activation of an overlay would require additional public hearings and planning review. Council did not adopt any site‑plan, funding commitment or development agreement at Thursday’s meeting.