200 South Hamilton Road

Gahanna, Ohio 43230

City of Gahanna

Meeting Minutes

Planning Commission

John Hicks, Chair

Sarah Pollyea, Vice Chair

Michael Greenberg

James Mako

Thomas W. Shapaka

Michael Suriano

Michael Tamarkin

Sophia McGuire, Deputy Clerk of Council

Wednesday, April 9, 2025

7:00 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

CALL MEETING TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ROLL CALL

Gahanna Planning Commission met in regular session on April 9,

2025. The agenda for this meeting was published on April 4, 2025,

Chair John Hicks called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with the

Pledge of Allegiance led by Sarah Pollyea.

Chair Hicks welcomed Clerk Hilts who was covering the meeting in the

temporary absence of Deputy Clerk of Council Sophia McGuire.

7 -

Present

John Hicks, James Mako, Sarah Pollyea, Michael Suriano, Michael

Tamarkin, Thomas W. Shapaka, and Michael Greenberg

ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA - None

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2025-0077

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2.26.2025

SWEAR IN APPLICANTS & SPEAKERS

City Attorney Priya Tamilarasan administered an oath to those persons

wishing to present testimony this evening.

APPLICATIONS - PUBLIC COMMENT

V-0008-2025

To consider a Variance Application to vary Section 1103.06(e) - Estate

Residential of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Gahanna; for

property located at 4444 Shull Road; Parcel ID 025-011937; Current

Zoning ER - Estate Residential; Labocki Homes, Inc; Jordon Labocki,

applicant.

Director of Planning Michael Blackford provided a summary of the

application; see attached staff report. Director Blackford reported that

the applicant requests approval of a variance related to a Subdivision

Without Plat (SWP)/lot split application. The proposal involves dividing

the existing parcel into two parcels, one north and one south,

approximately 2.8 acres and 2.5 acres. The southern parcel would have

approximately 137.5 feet of frontage, which is approximately 12.5 feet

short of the 150-foot requirement for Estate Residential (ER) zoning. The

site currently contains one single-family residence and a driveway. No

development plans or permit applications were submitted at this time.

Director Blackford then reviewed the variance criteria. They are: the

variance is not likely to result in substantial change to the essential

character of the neighborhood; the variance is not likely to result in

damage to adjoining properties; the variance is not likely to affect the

delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage); the

variance is not likely to result in environmental impacts greater than what

is typical for other lots in the neighborhood; the variance is necessary for

the economical use of the property, and such economical use of the

property is not easily achieved through some method other than a

variance; the variance is not likely to undermine the objectives of the

Land Use Plan; whether the variance is substantial and is the minimum

necessary to make possible the reasonable use of land or structures; the

practical difficulty could be eliminated by some other method, even if the

solution is less convenient or more costly to achieve. He focused

specifically on the first criteria: the variance is not likely to result in

substantial damage to the essential character of the neighborhood. He

stated lot frontage is in zoning code is that it is used as a tool to regulate

the development of a property. If the variance is granted, in staff’s

opinion, it would not damage the area’s character because it would not

permit future lot splits without several additional variances.

Director Blackford explained that staff recommended approval of the

Variance application as submitted. The requested variance was minor,

and both parcels met the frontage requirement, if the front property line

was the same length as the rear one. Staff did not believe that granting

the variance would cause negative effects.

He then addressed a letter Planning Commission received from a

contiguous property owner. He recalled there was a concern related to

access raised by the neighboring property owner. After discussions with

Engineering, it was determined here would be no issues accessing the

property via Shull Road.

Jordan Labocki, Deeds Road Granville, Ohio. Mr. Labocki stated he

would be the contracted builder for the land if the variance were granted.

Mr. Labocki had nothing to add to Mr. Blackford’s presentation, at that

time.

Chairman Hicks directed Mr. Labocki to remain available for questions

by the Commission. Chairman Hicks announced he had two speaker

slips for V-0008-2025, inviting speakers forward.

David Cooper, 4420 Shull Road, introduced himself. Mr. Cooper referred

to a letter of opposition he sent to Commission members on the variance

request. Mr. Cooper spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Cooper

shared concerns related to the possible location of a new driveway on

the proposed additional lot. Mr. Cooper questioned the location of a new

drive, in context of the topography of the area and the adjacent Schull

Road. Mr. Cooper also noted the neighborhood across the street. Mr.

Cooper described traffic concerns, including cars driving off the road and

speeding in the area. Mr. Cooper related his wariness of possible

collisions resulting from those speeding and the hill on the road, in

proximity to a new drive. Mr. Cooper expressed concern for access to

the proposed additional lot. Mr. Cooper speculated on alternative

configurations of the lotsplit. Mr. Cooper stated that the current lot retains

access to Shull Road, via an easement on Mr. Cooper’s drive. Mr.

Cooper explained he would not extend that easement to the proposed

additional lot. Mr. Cooper questioned whether the property will be on

septic or tied into City of Gahanna utilities.

Mark Sull, 1070 Brookhouse Lane: Mr. Sull asserted an interest in

development activities in the area. Mr. Sull echoed concerns related to

possible traffic collisions, noting he experienced a near collision that

morning, in the area. Mr. Sull described the area as a frequent deer

crossing. Mr. Sull stated a Home Owners Association ( HOA) fence, in

the area, was recently damaged, for the third time in 14 months, noting

the Mayor’s Office was contacted. Mr. Sull elaborated that he was not

certain if the night’s forum was the correct one for discussing his

concerns, however, he believed it was an opportunity to amplify the

situation.

Chair Hicks directed public speakers to remain available for questions

by the Commission. Chair Hicks invited Applicant, Mr. Labocki, to the

podium to respond to comments made by Mr. Cooper and Mr. Sull.

Mr. Labocki responded to the inquiry regarding whether future structures

would tie into City utilities or a septic system. Mr. Labocki explained he

contacted the City of Gahanna, to evaluate utility access opportunities.

Mr. Labocki asserted future development on both lots, old and new,

would tie into City of Gahanna sewer, not septic.

In response to questions about site access, Mr. Labocki acknowledged

that turns along Shull Road can be tight, and that speeding is a known

concern in the area. He noted that the proposed new driveway is

designed to align directly with Brookhouse Lane, the roadway located

across Shull Road from the development site. Brookhouse Lane is

perpendicular to Shull Road. Staff displayed a map on the meeting room

screen, illustrating the area and key points of discussion. Mr. Labocki

stated that, based on his estimates, traffic generated by the new drive will

not create conditions more hazardous than those already present, due to

existing traffic volumes from Brookhouse Lane.

Chair Hicks closed public comment at 7:26 p.m.

Mr. Greenberg acknowledged the hill on Shull Road is in a precarious

location. Mr. Greenberg confirmed with Mr. Labocki that the existing drive

easement will be maintained from the property to the south, with the

existing lot. Mr. Greenberg inquired if the anticipated building plans for

the proposed lot would be two stories tall. Mr. Labocki speculated it

might, clarifying that plans were not finalized at that time. Mr. Greenberg

questioned whether the applicant/property owner was aware of the

concerns voiced at the meeting or the letter received by the Planning

Commission. Mr. Labocki shared that the applicant/owner recently

returned to the United States, from out of the Country, however, not to

Columbus. Mr. Labocki was uncertain of the owner’s knowledge on the

matter. Mr. Greenberg noted Mr. Cooper’s suggestion to move the

lot-lines to an alternate location. Mr. Labocki explained the rationale for

the lot-lines as depicted in the application. Mr. Labocki shared the

existing home on the present lot will not move. Mr. Labocki shared the

goal was to evenly divide the lots in two, while accounting for the location

of the existing home. Mr. Greenberg confirmed with Mr. Labocki that the

existing pool on the site of the proposed lot split will be demoed. Mr.

Greenberg inquired if there were existing drainage issues on the site of

the proposed development. Mr. Labocki stated there was not, describing

a drainage line that currently emanates from the existing house to the

Shull Road, and the north lot as at a slightly higher elevation in

comparison to the existing lot.

Mr. Tamarkin acknowledged the existing concerns of traffic on Shull

Road, observing past collisions, including a fatality further up the road.

Mr. Tamarkin questioned the impact of adding an additional drive to the

area if it aligns with Brookhouse Lane. Mr. Tamarkin noted that existing

travelers from Brookhouse Lane currently make similar turns onto Shull

Road. Mr. Tamarkin confirmed with Mr. Labocki his intention to line up

the new drive with Brookhouse Lane. Mr. Labocki confirmed that was his

and his client’s intention, elaborating that any plans would need to be

reviewed and approved by the City of Gahanna’s Engineering

Department for regulation compliance, including site lines. Mr. Tamarkin

confirmed with the applicant that if the variance is not approved, the

applicant will proceed with the smaller lot, per code, including the same

drive, which would not require a variance application, resulting in the

installation of the new driveway regardless of variance approval.

Following confirmation from Mr. Labocki, Mr. Tamarkin concluded his

comments.

Mr. Shapaka noted that many of his questions were addressed.

Acknowledging that Director Blackford is not an engineer, Mr. Shapaka

asked whether it is generally preferred for a driveway to align with the

street opposite a development. Director Blackford clarified that he could

only speak in general terms but indicated that, in the development

process, it is typically preferred to align driveways with existing streets.

He stated that this would be his expectation in this particular case, minus

any site challenges. Mr. Shapaka voiced a desire for this to be kept in

mind as final site plans are developed.

Mr. Mako echoed Mr. Shapaka’s statement that many of his questions

were addressed. Mr. Mako questioned Mr. Labocki on how far the

sanitary sewer line would be extended to tie into the city’s system. Mr.

Labocki stated the city notified the applicant that the line runs behind the

property, and that was the recommended location to tie into the sewer

line. Mr. Mako confirmed that Mr. Labocki was aware and compliant of

the tie in costs incurred. Mr. Mako confirmed with Director Blackford that

any site curb cuts would be reviewed for compliance by the Engineering

Department. Director Blackford clarified that Planning Commission’s

review was the Public Hearing portion of the project, and that the

administrative portion of reviewing the project would fall under a future

submitted building permit. Under the building permit, items like curb cuts

and utility locations would be considered.

Chair Hicks confirmed with Mr. Labocki that there was no intention to

extend the existing easement from the neighbor’s drive to tie in a new

drive on the proposed new lot. Mr. Labocki agreed, explaining there was

no desire to obtain necessary permissions from the property owners and

the City of Gahanna, in order to extend the easement.

Mr. Cooper addressed Chair Hicks, from the audience, inquiring if he

could report further comments. Chair Hicks informed Mr. Cooper that the

public comments portion of the review was concluded, not allowing for

further public comment at that time. Mr. Cooper stated he wished to

respond to statements he described as untrue. Chair Hicks invited Mr.

Cooper to speak with Commission members or staff at a later time, as

public comments were closed.

A motion was made by Shapaka, seconded by Tamarkin, that the Variance be

Approved.

Discussion on the motion:

Mr. Suriano communicated he would be in favor of the variance, clarifying the

lot split request pertains to the impact of a difference of 12 feet, which does not

appear to be significant in this case.

Ms. Pollyea expressed support for the variance, acknowledging the concerns

raised, however, clarifying that the objections appeared to relate more to the

lot split than to the variance request itself. She noted that the Planning

Commission’s jurisdiction pertains specifically to the variance request. Ms.

Pollyea described the variance as minor and stated that she did not believe it

would result in a negative impact.

Mr. Mako stated his intention to vote in favor of the variance. He shared that,

over the course of his career, he has reviewed thousands of lot splits. Mr. Mako

characterized the variance as minor and agreed with fellow Commission

members that the concerns raised were not directly relevant to the variance

request or within the Commission’s jurisdiction.

The motion carried by the following vote:

7 - Hicks, Mako, Pollyea, Suriano, Tamarkin, Shapaka and Greenberg

Yes:

V-0009-2025

To consider a Variance Application to vary Section 1109.01(a)(4) -

Parking, Access, and Circulation of the Codified Ordinances of the City

of Gahanna; for property located at 991 E. Johnstown Road; Parcel ID

025-008946; Current Zoning NC

Neighborhood Commercial; King

Avenue 1.0 LLC; Ryan Paolini, applicant.

Director of Planning Michael Blackford provided a summary of the

application; see attached staff report. Director Blackford reported that

the applicant requested a variance in connection with a Subdivision

Without Plat (SWP)/lot split application. The applicant intends to divide

the property, originally developed in 2017, with the intent to create a north

and south parcel. The site currently includes a medical office building,

three parking areas, and two access drives. The proposed lot split would

place the new property line through two existing parking areas and a

sidewalk, resulting in a new nonconformity with the required 10-foot

parking setback. No development or permit applications were submitted;

the request pertains only to existing site conditions. Pre-existing

nonconformities do not require a variance.

Director Blackford provided the variance approval criteria. Staff

recommended approval of the variance application as submitted. The

requested variance is for existing conditions on the lot, but it is now

nonconforming due to the proposed SWP. The new nonconformity is due

to the proposed SWP/lot split. Additionally, the building still meets all

setbacks. Staff does not believe that granting this variance will cause

negative effects.

Chair Hicks opened public comment at 7:27 p.m.

Jim Saab, Front Street, Columbus introduced himself as an attorney for

the applicant and spoke in support of the application. Mr. Saab

described the proposed development of the vacant lot as an advantage

to the community, providing tax revenue for the city and schools. Mr.

Saab described the utility points and access points as already in place

and not in need of change. Mr. Saab expressed he would be in

appreciation of the Commission’s approval on the variance request.

Ryan Paolini, Front Street, Columbus introduced himself as the applicant

and paralegal on the application. Mr. Paolini thanked the Commission

for the opportunity to present the variance.

No additional public speakers were present for the agenda item. Chair

Hicks closed Public Comment at 7:35 p.m.

Mr. Greenberg questioned Director Blackford on the outline of the

property as shown in the presentation materials, noting the lower corner

of the outline appeared odd. Director Blackford acknowledged the

irregularity, explaining that the GIS (Geographic Information System)

imagery is collected from the county.

Mr. Tamarkin referred to the photograph, inquiring if there would be two

owners for the two parcels, if the lot split was approved. Mr. Saab shared

that currently there was one owner, acknowledging the potential for more

owners in the future. Mr. Saab noted that as part of the lot split

agreement, the applicant will record reciprocal easement agreements for

the shared drives, utilities and cost sharing.

Mr. Mako asked whether the parking areas would be shared between the

proposed parcels. Mr. Saab responded that he did not believe shared

parking would be necessary. Mr. Mako then inquired if the applicant

anticipated any potential conflicts related to parking arrangements

between the two parcels. Mr. Saab stated he did not foresee any issues,

reiterating that reciprocal easement agreements for shared drives,

utilities, parking, and cost-sharing would be recorded as part of the lot

split agreement. Mr. Mako also asked whether there were plans to

develop the southern parcel. Mr. Saab confirmed, and explained that the

desire to develop the southern parcel was the primary motivation for the

lot split.

Ms. Pollyea asked the administration to explain why the intent to split the

lot in 2017 was not pursued until now. Director Blackford responded that,

while he believed the original intent was to initiate the lot split much

earlier, he could not say with certainty why it was delayed. He speculated

that the delay was due to the absence of a clear user or immediate need.

Director Blackford also recalled that the project may have experienced a

slow start, which could have contributed to the postponement.

Chair Hicks inquired as to the current zoning of the parcel. Director

Blackford responded he believed it was Neighborhood Commercial.

Chair Hicks addressed the applicant, clarifying he was not holding him to

a site plan or a development plan, inquiring what was the intention of the

owner for the development on the parcel. Mr. Saab responded the intent

was to build an office building with a similar use, and to conform to the

use in the neighboring parcel. Chair Hicks inquired if there were

additional questions from the commission.

Mr. Shapaka informed Chair Hicks that he had additional questions. Mr.

Shapaka asked Director Blackford whether the Neighborhood

Commercial zoning designation would permit a gas station. Director

Blackford responded that it would not. Mr. Shapaka then inquired about

the required curb cuts for the site. Director Blackford explained that he

could not speak to curb cuts, as those decisions fall under the jurisdiction

of the Engineering Department. Director Blackford noted that the

application reflects an intent to minimize and share access points where

possible. Director Blackford elaborated on the typical uses permitted

under the Neighborhood Commercial zoning designation, such as office,

medical, and neighborhood retail, uses that generally produce low traffic

volumes, primarily during daytime hours. In contrast, he noted that gas

stations function more as community-serving uses rather than

neighborhood-serving, which is why the zoning code rewrite made a

clear distinction between the two.

A motion was made by Mako, seconded by Pollyea, that the Variance be

Approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

7 - Hicks, Mako, Pollyea, Suriano, Tamarkin, Shapaka and Greenberg

Yes:

V-0010-2025

To consider a Variance Application to vary Section 1111.03 - Permanent

Sign Standards of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Gahanna; for

property located at 1250 N. Hamilton Road; Parcel ID 025-009897;

Current Zoning GC - General Commercial; Giant Eagle; Zack Cowan,

applicant.

Director of Planning Michael Blackford, provided a summary of the

application; see attached staff report. Director Blackford reported that

the applicant requests a variance to replace the existing west wall sign

on the Giant Eagle building with a new sign measuring approximately

111 square feet, which is 77 square feet smaller than the current sign.

The west sign was not included in the original 2001 variance, so a new

variance is required for its replacement. The request is part of a larger

sign package to update the site’s branding, including a new sign on the

north elevation that is 17 square feet smaller than the existing sign, at

238 square feet. The total signage on the site would be reduced from

approximately 740 square feet to 645 square feet. Although the zoning

code allows only 400 square feet of signage, a prior variance from 2001

permits the larger total. The only sign requiring a variance under the

current code is the west wall sign, which exceeds the 50 square foot

maximum by 61 square feet. Director Blackford stated staff did not

believe there would be any negative impact with approval of the variance,

and conveyed surprise that there were not any previous updates for the

local businesses and maintaining structures and zoning throughout the

jurisdiction

Chair Hicks opened public comment at 7:42 p.m.

Jim McFarland, Skyline Drive, Ashville Ohio: Mr. McFarland, Founder of

Zoning Resources, spoke on behalf of the applicant, Zack Cowan. Mr.

McFarland noted Mr. Cowan’s apologies for being unable to attend the

meeting. Mr. McFarland noted that his organization represents Kroger,

in addition to Giant Eagle locations, that are non-conforming in the

mid-west. Mr. McFarland thanked the Commission for the opportunity to

present the application, noting it was unique to present an application

request reducing square footage and variance impacts. Mr. McFarland

thanked staff for their work, stating he did not have any additions to the

presentation, other than to note it would be beneficial to see the sign,

calling attention to the mature tree in front of the sign, which currently

obscures the view.

Mr. Greenberg recalled he approved the last grocery store sign,

describing it as a similar request and an improvement, communicating

his intent to vote in support of the application.

Mr. Suriano inquired if the existing sign was grandfathered into approval.

Director Blackford acknowledged staff performed extensive research,

describing the subject as difficult due to numerous code changes and

variances over the duration of the installation of the signs in question, on

the application. Director Blackford noted three significant code changes

in that time frame. Mr. Suriano evaluated the variance did not have a

gross impact and was an improvement, an uptake in branding and

smaller than the existing sign.

Mr. Shapaka inquired if the existing sign was a block sign with internal

LED (light-emitting diode) illumination and if the proposed sign would be

the same. The applicant confirmed. Mr. Shapaka also inquired if there

was any consideration given to trimming the tree to improve visibility of

the sign. Mr. McFarland shared he was unaware of plans from Giant

Eagle to trim the tree, noting the applicant’s appreciation of the tree.

Mr. Mako thanked staff for the presentation.

There were brief comments between staff and commission members

related to staff simplifying presentations, providing minimal mathematical

details in the meeting presentation, with full detailed information included

in written reports and applications.

Chair Hicks invited members of the public to share their comments. No

additional public speakers were present for the agenda item. Chair

Hicks closed public comment at 7:50 p.m.

A motion was made by Suriano, seconded by Shapaka, that the Variance be

Approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

6 - Hicks, Mako, Pollyea, Suriano, Shapaka and Greenberg

1 - Tamarkin

Yes:

Abstain, COI:

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS - None

OFFICIAL REPORTS

Assistant City Attorney

City Attorney Tamilarasan shared an appreciation for participating in the

meeting in place of Assistant City Attorney Matthew Roth. Chairman

Hicks thanked City Attorney Tamilarasan for her attendance in Mr. Roth’s

absence.

Director of Planning

Director of Planning Michael Blackford made light jokes in reference to

the absence of Applicant Zack Cowan and wished City Planner II Maddie

Capka a happy birthday.

Council Liaison

Council Liaison Sarah Pollyea provided an update on the City of

Gahanna’s strategic planning initiative, Our Gahanna. She reported that

phase one of the initiative was complete, with phase two set to begin,

including a weekend of community events scheduled for early May. Ms.

Pollyea noted that City Council recently adopted the Planning

Commission's recently recommended revisions to the zoning code.

Additionally, she highlighted that City Attorney Tamilarasan proposed

legislative changes aimed at standardizing review processes and fee

structures, related to appeal withdraws, across City review boards,

promoting more cohesive and consistent regulation and

Mayor

Mayor Jadwin echoed Director Blackford’s teasing comments regarding

the absence of Applicant Zack Cowan. Mayor Jadwin expressed

appreciation to all who participated in the recent State of the City event,

held in late March 2025. She described the event as a success and

encouraged those who were unable to attend to view the recording titled

2025 State of Our City - Our Gahanna, available on YouTube. The

recording highlights the City's recent accomplishments and ongoing

initiatives. Mayor Jadwin echoed Council Liaison Sarah Pollyea’s

remarks on the Our Gahanna strategic planning initiative, providing

additional detail on the upcoming events scheduled for May 6, 7, and 8,

2025. She noted that Council received a progress update in March of

2025, emphasizing that phase two builds on the results of phase one with

more in-depth exploration. Mayor Jadwin also announced the hiring of

Jeff Gottke as the City’s new Director of Economic Development.

Chair

Chair Hicks informed the Commission that the appeal to the Board of

Zoning and Building Appeals (BZBA) on an application from One Church,

was rescheduled and encouraged Commissioners to anticipate its

forthcoming review. City Attorney Tamilarasan added that the appeal

may return to the agenda later in April of 2025. Chairman Hicks also

noted the upcoming federal tax filing deadline and, with light humor,

encouraged individuals to check in on their local Certified Public

Accountants (CPAs).

CORRESPONDENCE AND ACTIONS

Chairman Hicks requested that staff include an email from a public

speaker David Cooper as part of the official record for the application, in

keeping with the Commission’s standard practice. Clerk Hilts confirmed

that staff would attach the referenced correspondence received about the

agenda item V-0008-2025 to the agenda and meeting materials.

POLL MEMBERS FOR COMMENT

Mr. Tamarkin explained his earlier abstention from agenda item

V-0010-2025, citing a prior professional relationship with Giant Eagle,

approximately 40 years ago, in the state of Florida. He shared an

anecdote reflecting the environmental values of a former leader within

Giant Eagle, recalling a time when Giant Eagle declined to remove a tree

that would have improved sign visibility. Mr. Tamarkin noted that the

individual has since retired but speculated that his influence may still be

present within the organization. Mr. Tamarkin noted his abstention was

due to his former affiliation with Giant Eagle. Commission colleagues

thanked Mr. Tamarkin for the context.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before the Planning Commission,

Chairman Hicks adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m