Delaware council hears large, contested proposal for motorsports complex, ice arena and youth driving school; zoning left open for future review

Developers and the Ohio AAA Blue Jackets on Monday described a multi-use commercial planned unit development on roughly 260 acres at the southwest corner of Sawmill Parkway and U.S. 42 that would include a driving school, a three-sheet ice arena and a motorsports driving park with an outdoor-covered pavilion for concerts and community events.

The zoning request, filed as PUD 25‑1 and considered under ordinance 25‑05, is for a Commercial Planned Unit Development within the Southwest Focus Area Plan and Southwest Zoning Overlay. Planning staff and the applicant emphasized that the council was deciding only whether the land use/zoning framework is appropriate; detailed site design, traffic mitigation and noise controls would be addressed later at the development‑plan stage when specific uses, building orientations and engineering are submitted.

Why it matters: The proposal drew large public turnout and extended council discussion because the project would be among the largest land‑use changes in the city’s Southwest planning area. Supporters cited sport, workforce and youth development benefits; opponents cited traffic, noise and impacts on adjacent rural residential properties in Concord Township.

Applicant presentation and proposed community benefits Bruce Daniels, one of the lead proponents, described a “School of Drive” tied to a nonprofit youth‑development effort (Impact 60) and said the proposed program would include classroom skills beyond driving, such as financial literacy and nutrition classes. Daniels said the driving school component was intended to be a nonprofit, scholarship‑supported program to improve driver education and provide workforce development opportunities in technician trades. Ed Ganger, president of the Ohio AAA Blue Jackets youth hockey organization, said the ice facility would be a three‑sheet complex intended to host youth hockey, public skating and summer community events.

Applicant representatives told council they had performed a preliminary sound study and would design the site to comply with the city’s recently adopted noise ordinance. Andy Brush, an applicant representative, said the team had “adjusted our development plans to conform with that ordinance and we plan to comply with it fully.” The developers also said the track itself would not be lit at night and that building orientation, mounding and vegetation would be used to reduce off‑site noise.

Community concerns and planning response Dozens of nearby residents and two Concord Township trustees spoke at the public hearing. The Concord Township Board of Trustees submitted a formal resolution opposing the application, citing concerns about noise, light pollution, increased traffic and potential “legal nuisances” for adjacent township property owners.

Residents living within a mile of the site told council they feared concert noise and vehicle noise would be audible across rural lots and could spook horses used for recreation and livelihood. Shannon Summers, who lives on Maynard Road south of U.S. 42, told council: “The noise from the racetrack is going to impact our quality of life. ... The noise will disrupt the peace and joy we purchased when we moved to Maynard Road.” Several residents asked how the project would affect wetlands and nearby habitat.

Staff and applicant said the zoning step before council would not set final operating conditions. Anna Kelsey, planning and zoning administrator, told council a traffic impact study (TIS) will be required at the development plan stage and that any needed roadway turn lanes, signalization or widening would be the developer’s responsibility. Kelsey also noted that the site sits within subareas of the Southwest Focus Area Plan and that “all of the proposed uses within this PUD application are uses that were either permitted by right or conditionally within these sub districts.”

Noise, lighting and jurisdictional limits Staff reiterated that the city’s noise ordinance and the criminal code provide enforcement authority should post‑construction operations violate noise limits. Kelsey said FAA lighting regulations would apply for any tall structures or lighting near the airport and that the 50‑foot minimum development setback proposed on the south and west boundaries was only a minimum that could be expanded at development‑plan review.

Applicants said they planned additional mitigation techniques including building orientation, mounding and vegetation buffers. One applicant representative said the track would be oriented to minimize impact on residential lots and that the team intends “to be courteous” and to work with neighbors as the design advances.

Outcome and next steps Council did not vote to approve the rezoning. Following the presentation and public hearing, council members said a second reading and additional review would be required. Council and staff emphasized that the zoning decision being considered would not itself permit construction of specific facilities; separate development plans and public hearings would come later and would include traffic, noise and lighting studies.

The application remains pending; the record shows council will take the matter to another reading and expects additional public input and technical studies (traffic, stormwater and acoustical engineering) before any final zoning action.

The public hearing record will be available with planning staff materials as the applicant prepares development‑plan submissions.