This is part of Worthington Pulse's coverage of the Boundless apartment proposal in the June 25 meeting recap, alongside a breakdown of the proposal itself and an explainer on the traffic study.
The Municipal Planning Commission spent nearly an hour and a half on June 25 listening to residents weigh in on a single question: whether to recommend that City Council rezone part of the Boundless campus for Elford Development's 246-unit apartment plan. Twenty-seven people spoke, on top of the more than 80 emails the chair said the city had received. They filled the chamber and an overflow room upstairs.
Who was in the room
Most speakers identified themselves as residents of the nearby Colonial Hills neighborhood, residing on streets closest to the site: Park Overlook Drive, Indianola Avenue, the Selby boulevards. Long tenure was a recurring credential; speakers cited 25, 27, 34, and 40-plus years in the neighborhood, and a few traced family roots back generations. Several brought professional weight to the microphone, including a resident with a law degree and a master's degree in city and transportation planning, a retired architect and planner who is also an attorney, and a professional who works with autistic children and adults. The site's institutional neighbor appeared as well: the president of the Ohio Railway Museum raised questions about drainage, fencing, and safety along the rail line while making clear the museum had no objection to the development itself.
The supporters were fewer, and they tended to speak from civic roles rather than adjacent front porches: the chair of the city's Community Improvement Corporation, a resident who served six years on the Community Relations Commission, a church youth ministry volunteer who lives just outside the city.
The opposition's message
Nearly every opponent led with a version of the same disclaimer: not against housing, against this plan. Some described years spent renting apartments themselves; others volunteered that Worthington plainly needs more homes. Taken at face value, the objection was about fit rather than growth, and it clustered on three things: density, height, and traffic.
Density was the through line. Because the protected Rush Run ravine cannot be built on, speaker after speaker recomputed the project against only the roughly 11 buildable acres, arriving at about 22 units per acre, several times the density of the surrounding streets. The asks that followed were specific: cap the project at 165 units, hold every building to two stories. A longtime Indianola Avenue resident who was among those who fought for the street's original closure drew her line at the third story, saying she could live with the development if it stayed at two.
The traffic study drew the sharpest criticisms. Complaints went to the study's foundations: a single day of counts taken the week before Christmas, one generic trip rate applied to every unit size, a lone intersection standing in for a corridor residents experience as already strained, and a signal-timing assumption inherited from a study now seven years old. City staff held that the development's impact would be negligible once the signal is retimed, and committed to refining the study before the Council hearing. Worthington Pulse breaks down the study itself in a companion explainer.
Stay connected to what's happening in Worthington, Ohio.
A neighborhood ballot
The evening's most quoted numbers came from a Colonial Hills group that said it had mailed a private ballot to the neighborhood's roughly 830 households. Speakers reported 459 responses, a return rate above 55 percent, with 27 in favor and 432 opposed, a roughly 16 to 1 ratio against. The ballot was organized through the group's private Facebook group, and neither the questions asked nor the full results are publicly available.
The case in favor
Supporters framed the project as an answer to a regional problem. They pointed to central Ohio's housing shortage, which one put at more than 50,000 units, and to the young graduates, city workers, and school employees who grow up in or serve Worthington but cannot afford to live in it. The Community Improvement Corporation chair described his own son, a Worthington Kilbourne graduate, renting in Grandview for lack of a comparable option here. The former Community Relations Commission member connected the plan's 74 workforce-housing units to Colonial Hills' own contested history, including the racial covenants once attached to some of its deeds, and framed the development as a test of the neighborhood's openness. Another supporter insisted that quiet support in Colonial Hills runs wider than the hearing suggested and wished more of his neighbors would say so publicly.
Questions about the money
The project's financing surfaced as well, though more quietly than traffic or density. One supporter said his single reservation was whether the city planned to grant Elford a tax abatement. The former Community Relations Commission member went the other way with it, walking through the workforce-housing abatement's terms, including the payroll floor Boundless must maintain and the income limits on the affordable units, as part of his case for the plan. Opponents raised the money on different terms: one asked why the city had reportedly offered only about $2 million for a site the developer paid several times that for, and others objected to Elford's request to waive a roughly $75,000 tree-replacement fee. None of it displaced traffic and density as the central objections, but it ran underneath the hearing as a question of who ultimately benefits. Worthington Pulse details the abatement and the workforce-housing terms in the proposal breakdown.
What it means for July 20
The commission recommended approval, 4-1, with one member casting a deliberate no vote to signal to Council that concerns remained unresolved. Nearly every argument aired on June 25, the density math, the traffic study, the 165-unit cap, the call for two stories, is likely to return when City Council takes up the rezoning on Monday, July 20 at 7 p.m. Residents on every side of the question, including the ones who stayed home in June, will have another chance to be heard before Council makes the final call.
This is one of three Worthington Pulse stories on the Boundless proposal. Read the others: Inside the Boundless Apartment Proposal and The Boundless Traffic Study, Explained. Or start with the June 25 meeting recap.