200 South Hamilton Road

Gahanna, Ohio 43230

City of Gahanna

Meeting Minutes

Property Appeals Board

Sarah Pollyea, Chair

Jason Ruark, Vice Chair

Holly Haines

Monica Moran

Elizabeth Smith

Jeremy A. VanMeter, Clerk of Council

Tuesday, April 29, 2025

6:00 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

CALL TO ORDER: Pledge of Allegiance & Roll Call

The City of Gahanna Property Appeals Board met on Tuesday, April

29, 2025, in Council Chambers. Sarah Pollyea, Chair, called the

meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Board Member Jason Ruark led

members in the Pledge of Allegiance. The agenda was published on

Friday, April 25, 2025.

Note: Holly Haines was appointed by Council on March 17, 2025, to

the board seat vacated by William Sweeney (Seat 1 - Unexpired Term

1/1/2023 - 12/31/2025), and was sworn-in on April 24, 2025.

5 -

Present

Sarah Pollyea, Elizabeth Smith, Monica Moran, Jason Ruark, and Holly

Haines

ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA:

None.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

2025-0053

Property Appeals Board Minutes 1.14.2025

A motion was made by Moran, seconded by Smith, that the Minutes be

Approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

5 - Pollyea, Moran, Smith, Ruark and Haines

Yes:

ADMINISTERING THE OATH:

Assistant City Attorney Roth administered the Oath to all parties

providing testimony for the board’s public hearings.

APPEALS - PUBLIC HEARINGS:

PAB-0002-2025

SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE PROGRAM APPEAL CODE SECTION

903.4 - 909 Harmony Drive, Michael Greiner, Appellant; Department of

Engineering, Appellee

Chair Sarah Pollyea read the appeal into the record and explained the

rules of procedure for the public hearing. She stated that the Board would

allow public comment, with each speaker limited to three minutes. She

stated that the appellant would receive a total of 15 minutes, including

time for any interested parties, and that the appellee would also receive a

total of 15 minutes, including time for any interested parties. She stated

that the appellant would then receive five minutes for further argument or

rebuttal, followed by five minutes for further argument or rebuttal by the

appellee. She noted that Board members could ask questions and

provide comments throughout the hearing. Chair Pollyea also explained

that, upon disposition of an appeal, the Board could find in favor of the

appellant or appellee, find in favor with modifications, or remand the

matter with instructions to the appropriate city official, employee, or body

for further consideration and action.

Chair Pollyea opened the hearing on the first item and invited the

appellant to speak, requesting that he come to the podium and state his

name and address. Michael Greiner stated his name and his address.

Upon inquiry from Chair Pollyea, Mr. Greiner stated that he owned the

property. Chair Pollyea acknowledged his response and invited him to

proceed.

Mr. Greiner stated that, after speaking with the attorney, he had decided

to withdraw his appeal. Chair Pollyea noted the withdrawal and asked

whether he wished to request a refund of his filing fee. Mr. Greiner stated

that he did.

The appeal was withdrawn by the Appellant at the meeting on April 29, 2025.

Filing Fee Refund Requested (Appeal Withdrawn)

Mr. Greiner conferred with the Chair and Clerk regarding the process for

the refund. Assistant City Attorney Roth also clarified with the Department

of Engineering Mr. Greiner’s status for not opting out of the program and

instead participating in the program. Paige Wright, Transportation and

Mobility Engineer, noted there was nothing additional required and the

department would take record through the board’s meeting and proceed

accordingly.

A motion was made by Smith, seconded by Haines, that Michael Greiner,

Appellant, 909 Harmony Drive, Gahanna, Ohio be refunded $50 for the filing

fee of the appeal PAB-0002-2025 that was withdrawn. The motion carried by

the following vote:

5 - Pollyea, Moran, Smith, Ruark and Haines

Yes:

NEW BUSINESS:

PAB-0001-2025

SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE PROGRAM APPEAL CODE SECTION

903.4 - 341 Chilton Place, Mary Burkett, Appellant; Department of

Engineering, Appellee

The appeal was withdrawn by the Appellant on March 12, 2025.

Filing Fee Refund Requested (Appeal Withdrawn)

A motion was made by Ruark, seconded by Haines, that Mary Burkett,

Appellant, 341 Chilton Place, Gahanna, Ohio be refunded $50 for the filing fee

of the appeal PAB-0001-2025 that was withdrawn. The motion carried by the

following vote:

5 - Pollyea, Moran, Smith, Ruark and Haines

Yes:

Proposed Rules Amendments:

RULES-0001-20 Property Appeals Board - Proposed Amendments to Rules of Procedure

4.29.2025

Chair Sarah Pollyea stated that the City Attorney had submitted

proposed amendments to the Board’s rules of procedure for review. She

asked whether the Law Department or the Clerk had any comments on

the proposed changes.

Assistant City Attorney Roth explained that City Attorney Tamilarasan

had reviewed the rules for all boards and commissions with the goal of

making them as cohesive as possible, including aligning rules and

timelines across boards. He stated that, when the rules for this Board

were originally drafted, they included a provision allowing the Board to

call city staff to testify. He explained that this provision did not make

sense because, in appeals before this Board, the City served as the

appellee and relevant departments and employees already appeared to

provide testimony. For that reason, the proposed amendments removed

that provision. He further stated that the amendments changed several

timelines from seven business days to five business days and otherwise

cleaned up and refined the rules, which had not required much use since

the Board’s creation.

Chair Pollyea opened discussion among Board members and first

recognized Board Member Smith. Board Member Smith stated that she

reviewed Article 11 and asked why it had been deleted. Assistant City

Attorney Roth responded that relevant city staff would already be present

as the appellee, so the Board did not need the authority to call additional

staff. Board Member Smith stated that, in the current case, Engineering

Department staff were present because the matter involved engineering

issues. She then asked what would happen if the Board decided, in its

discretion, that it needed to speak with someone else. She expressed

concern about losing the Board’s discretion to request additional

individuals.

Board Member Ruark referenced the Board’s authority to remand

matters as part of its powers. Chair Pollyea responded that the Board

could remand with instructions to a city official, employee, or body for

further consideration and action. She asked Assistant City Attorney Roth

to confirm whether the Board could remand a matter and request that a

specific individual appear at a later, rescheduled hearing. Assistant City

Attorney Roth stated that the Board could do so, but explained that City

Attorney Tamilarasan did not envision a likely scenario where testimony

from a department unrelated to the appeal would be necessary.

Board Member Smith stated additional concerns. She explained that,

while the Board could remand after a hearing, situations could arise in

which, during preparation for a hearing, the Board determined it needed

testimony from someone else. She provided an example of a

hypothetical nuisance or barking dog appeal where the Board might want

testimony from a police officer or another city employee. She stated that

she opposed removing the Board’s discretion to request such testimony.

Chair Pollyea thanked Board Member Smith. Board Member Ruark

stated that he agreed with her concern in that scenario and had no further

comments. Chair Pollyea then recognized Board Member Haines, who

stated that Board Member Smith raised a good point and that she had

nothing further to add. Board Member Moran stated that limiting the

authority of a Board intended to promote transparency for the citizens of

Gahanna conflicted with the Board’s purpose. She stated that she

opposed any changes that would limit the Board’s scope or its ability to

obtain all relevant information.

Chair Pollyea stated that she had no additional comments. She

explained that the Board could move to adopt the rules as proposed,

adopt them with amendments to Article 11, or adopt them and then vote

on amendments. She asked whether a Board member wished to make a

motion.

Clerk VanMeter added comments regarding implementation and asked

how Section 11.2 would operate in practice, including whether an

individual Board member or the full Board would need to make a request,

and how such requests would comply with open meetings requirements.

Board Member Smith asked whether this situation had been

contemplated previously, and Clerk VanMeter responded that it had not.

Board Member Smith agreed that this raised a good point and

suggested that the Board would vote by majority to request an additional

person.

Assistant City Attorney Roth stated that he interpreted the rule to mean

that a Board member would communicate a request through the Chair at

least 48 hours in advance, the Chair would communicate with the Clerk,

and the Clerk would notify the appropriate city staff member. He stated

that such requests would need to occur in advance of the meeting, not

during or after the hearing.

Chair Pollyea agreed that requests would need to occur in advance and

discussed communicating requests to the Chair or Clerk, as well as

potential limitations on the availability of appointed officials. Assistant

City Attorney Roth stated that earlier communication increased the

likelihood of attendance and noted that the Board could continue a

hearing if the requested individual was unavailable.

Chair Pollyea asked whether there was any further discussion. Hearing

none, she stated that the Board first needed a motion to adopt the

proposed changes. Board Member Smith moved to adopt the proposed

changes.

Chair Pollyea asked for a second. Board Member Moran requested

clarification and stated that the intent was to strike Section 11 while

accepting the rest of the changes. Chair Pollyea explained that the Board

would first adopt the changes as submitted and then consider a separate

motion to amend Article 11 by striking the proposed redline changes.

She asked again for a second, and Board Member Ruark seconded the

motion. Chair Pollyea asked whether there was further discussion and

hearing none, proceeded.

Board Member Smith then moved to amend the rules by adopting the

proposed changes but excluding the changes to Sections 11.1, 11.2, and

11.3, leaving Article 11 otherwise intact, including Section 11.4

identifying the City Attorney or designee as legal adviser to the Property

Appeals Board. Chair Pollyea clarified that the amendment would leave

Article 11 unchanged and remove all redline edits. Board Member Smith

confirmed that clarification. Board Member Moran seconded the motion

to amend.

Chair Pollyea stated that the Board would proceed to a roll call vote on

the motion to amend, which preserved Article 11 without the proposed

redline changes, and directed the Clerk to conduct the roll call.

A motion was made by Smith, seconded by Moran, to Amend the motion to

adopt all proposed changes to the Rules of Procedure, by incorporating all

proposed changes, except for those striking Article XI sections. The motion

carried by the following vote:

5 - Pollyea, Moran, Smith, Ruark and Haines

Yes:

Chair Pollyea stated that the motion to amend carried. She stated that

the Board now needed to move to adopt the rules as amended, which

struck the redline changes from Article 11 and retained Article 11 as

originally written. She noted that the motion to adopt the rules had already

been made by Board Member Smith and seconded by Board Member

Ruark.

Chair Pollyea asked whether there was any discussion on the motion to

adopt the rules as amended. Hearing none, she requested a roll call vote.

A motion was made by Smith, seconded by Ruark, that the Rules of Procedure

be Approved as Amended. The motion carried by the following vote:

4 - Moran, Smith, Ruark and Haines

1 - Pollyea

Yes:

No:

POLL MEMBERS FOR COMMENT:

Board Member Smith stated that she had no comments other than

thanking everyone for ensuring that the process moved smoothly.

Board Member Moran stated that it was a great meeting. She stated that

having context for some of the rules, possibly through advance

discussion or explanation, might have helped move the process forward,

but she otherwise thanked everyone for the meeting.

Chair Pollyea then welcomed Board Member Haines to the Board and

invited her to introduce herself and share a brief background. Board

Member Haines introduced herself as a resident of Gahanna in Ward

Two. She stated that she had lived in Gahanna for nearly four years and