200 South Hamilton Road

Gahanna, Ohio 43230

City of Gahanna

Meeting Minutes

Planning Commission

Wednesday, October 22, 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 October 22,

2025. The agenda for this meeting was published on October 17,

2025. Chair Sarah Pollyea called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with

the Pledge of Allegiance led by Elizabeth Laser.

6 -

Present

Absent

James Mako, Chair Sarah Pollyea, Vice Chair Michael Suriano, Michael

Tamarkin, Michael Greenberg, and Elizabeth Laser

1 - Thomas W. Shapaka

ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA - None

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2025-0195

Planning Commission meeting minutes 9.24.2025

A motion was made by Tamarkin, seconded by Greenberg, that the Minutes be

Approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

6 - Mako, Chair Pollyea, Vice Chair Suriano, Tamarkin, Greenberg and Laser

1 - Shapaka

Yes:

Absent:

SWEAR IN APPLICANTS & SPEAKERS

Assistant City Attorney Matt Roth administered an oath to those persons

wishing to present testimony this evening.

APPLICATIONS - PUBLIC COMMENT

V-0024-2025

To consider

Development

Variance Application to vary Section 1103.07(e)

Standards: Large Lot Residential (R-1): Codified

Ordinances of the City of Gahanna; for property located at 675 Parkedge

Drive; Parcel ID 025-007586; Current Zoning R-1 - Large Lot Residential;

Larry Champlin, applicant.

City Planner Maddie Capka provided a summary of the application; see

attached staff presentation. The applicant property is located at 675 Park

Edge Drive and is zoned Large Lot Residential (R-1). It shares the

zoning designation with the rest of the neighborhood. Ms. Capka

explained that the majority of the properties on the west side of Park

Edge Drive and Laurel Ridge Drive are very narrow, deep properties.

Despite their large size, all of the homes are located close to the

right-of-way, due to a very large floodway and flood plain at the rear of the

site. Therefore, there are limited spaces where buildings, structures, or

additions can be located.

The applicant requests approval of a variance application to allow a 280

square foot addition within a side yard setback. For all properties zoned

R1, the standard side yard setback for principal structures is 15 feet. In

this case, the proposed addition is only 10 feet from the north property

line. All other setback requirements are met. Under the previous zoning

code, the site was zoned SF-2, which had a side yard setback of 10 feet.

However, due to the large size of the site, it does align more with the R1

zoning designation under the new zoning code. The applicant stated that

they began planning the addition before the current code was adopted,

so they were under the impression that the setback was still 10 feet.

Ms. Capka shared a site plan of the property, showing where the existing

home is located. The 15-foot setback was indicated with an orange line.

The boundary of the 100-year flood plain was indicated with a blue line.

The addition was shown in dark gray. The house is oriented on the site at

an angle, so only a portion of the addition encroaches into the setback.

Ms. Capka then shared an aerial image of the property, with the

approximate location of the addition outlined in yellow. She pointed out a

large existing patio to the rear of the home, further limiting where an

addition can be placed. She also noted there is no fence, existing

landscaping, or screening between this site and the property to the north.

However, the neighbors to the north submitted a statement saying that

they do not have an objection to the variance application.

Ms. Capka shared elevations of the addition. The east elevation faces

Park Edge Drive, the west elevation is to the rear of the addition, and the

north elevation faces the neighboring property to the north. The materials

of the addition are planned to match the existing home. The siding and

roofing materials, and the windows, will all be identical. One variance is

requested with the application. It is for chapter 1103.07(e), which states

that the principal structure must be at least 15 feet from the side property

lines and the addition is only 10 feet from the northern property line.ꢀ

Ms. Capka shared the standard variance criteria which must be fully met

in order for the application to be approved. They are:ꢀ

The variance is not likely to result in substantial damage 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 government

services;

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 cannot be achieved

through another method;

The variance is not likely to undermine the objectives of the Land

Use Plan;

Whetherꢀ 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.

Staff recommended approval of the variance as submitted. In summary,

the lot is very narrow and there are both 500-year and 100-year flood

plains to the rear of the house, meaning that there are minimal areas for

the home addition to be located. The applicant also submitted four

statements from neighbors in favor of the variance, including the neighbor

to the north, which would be the most impacted by the variance

application.ꢀ

Chair Pollyea opened public comment at 7:07 p.m.

Larry Champlin, 675 Park Edge Drive, introduced himself as the

homeowner. He expressed that Ms. Ms. Capka explained the application

very well.ꢀ

Chair Pollyea closed public comment at 7:08 p.m.

Mr. Mako asked the applicant if all building materials would be the same

as the existing structure, which Mr. Champlin confirmed. Mr. Mako

clarified that nothing was built yet, and that the project was in its planning

phase when the zoning code changed, changing the setback

requirements. Mr. Champlin agreed with Mr. Mako’s assessment. Mr.

Mako asked if there were easements on the side of the property where

the addition would be placed. Mr. Champlin stated there were no

easements where the addition would be placed.ꢀ

Mr. Greenberg asked if the patio would remain. Mr. Champlin clarified

that where the yellow box indicated the addition on the site plan, there

was no concrete patio.ꢀ

Mr. Tamarkin inquired about the garage door planned for the addition,

wondering if it would lead to grass or a paved area. Mr. Champlin

explained it would lead to grass, and would be used for mower access.

The addition would have a seven foot-by-seven foot garage door and

vehicles would not be stored in it.ꢀ

Ms. Pollyea asked who was doing the work, to which Mr. Champlin

replied AIS Renovations was the contractor for the job. He then explained

that if the variance was not granted, the addition would have an angled

corner, and would lose about 16 square feet. He felt it would look

unsightly and also take away space from the addition.ꢀ

Mr. Greenberg asked Deputy Clerk McGuire if there were any public

comments received. Ms. McGuire explained there was one comment

received via email from a neighbor supportive of the project. The email

was forwarded to the Commission and was also a part of the online

legislative file. Mr. Champlin added that the neighborhood was close-knit

and his neighbors were all in support of the project, joking that some use

his garage themselves.ꢀ

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

Approved.

Discussion on the motion:

Mr. Suriano stated he would be in support of the variance for the reasons that

staff outlined. Members Laser, Greenberg, and Tamarkin also expressed

support, with Mr. Tamarkin adding his appreciation for having letters from all

nearby neighbors that supported the project. Ms. Pollyea stated she would

support the project, adding that the topography would not lend itself to put the

addition elsewhere.ꢀ

The motion carried by the following vote:

6 - Mako, Chair Pollyea, Vice Chair Suriano, Tamarkin, Greenberg and Laser

1 - Shapaka

Yes:

Absent:

V-0025-2025

To consider a Variance Application to vary Section 1111.03 - Permanent

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

property located at 722 Buckles Court; Parcel ID 025-013810; Current

Zoning GC - General Commercial; Ohio Gastro Group; Zack Cowan,

applicant.

City Planner Maddie Capka provided a summary of the application; see

attached staff presentation. The application is for a variance at 722

Buckles Court North. The property is zoned General Commercial (GC),

and all properties along Buckles Court North share the same zoning

designation. The site is unique in that it has frontage on three different

rights-of-way. Interstate-270 is to the east, Tech Center Drive is to the

south, and Buckles Court North is to the west.ꢀ

Ms. Capka provided a brief history of the site. In October of 2022, a Final

Development Plan, Design Review, and Variance applications were

approved for a new medical office building on the site. The building

includes two tenants. At that time, there were no sign variances included

with the variance application. In February 2025, a sign permit was

approved for a monument sign, which has since been installed. The

approval did not include any wall signage. The applicant is requesting

approval of a variance for three wall signs. Two of the wall signs are on

the west elevation facing Buckles Court North. One is 32.25 square feet,

and the other is 53 square feet. The zoning code only allows one wall

sign at 50 square feet or less. There is one more wall sign proposed for

the east elevation, facing I-270, which is also 53 square feet. Zoning

Code allows a total of three wall signs (one sign per frontage) at the site

and 150 square feet (50 square feet per frontage) of wall signage. The

total square feet for all three wall signs is 138. When added with the

existing 32 square foot monument sign, the total area of all signage on

the site is around 170 square feet, which meets code requirements.ꢀ

Ms. Capka shared a site plan indicating the location of all signage. The

monument sign was included for reference but was not a part of the

application. The first two signs are on the west elevation, which is

considered the front of the building. Those signs are 160 and 180 feet

from the edge of the right-of-way. The third sign is the only sign on the

east elevation facing I-270, and is set back 70 feet from the edge of the

right-of-way. She then shared elevations showing what the signs would

look like. Sign two and sign three are both “Ohio Gastro” signs that are

the same size and design. The first sign reads “Capital Psych Services”

and is 32.25 square feet.ꢀ

Two variances are included with the application, both of which are from

section 1111.03 - Permanent Sign Standards of the zoning code. The

maximum wall sign area allowed per frontage is 50 square feet, and the

west elevation is proposed to have 85.25 square feet. Second, one wall

sign is permitted per frontage, and the west elevation is proposed to

have two wall signs.ꢀ

Ms. Capka shared the variance criteria, which are:

The variance is not likely to result in substantial damage 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 government

services;

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 cannot be achieved

through another method;

The variance is not likely to undermine the objectives of the Land

Use Plan;

Whetherꢀ 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.

Staff had no objections to the variance. Master Sign Plans are typically

preferred for multi-tenant buildings; however, there are only two tenants in

the building, so the applicant property owner preferred to seek approval

for variances. Ms. Capka described the request as minor, as there is

only one extra sign on the west elevation and the total area of all signage

on the site is below the maximum allowed by code. The applicant stated

they need the signage for increased visibility and identification.ꢀ

Chair Pollyea opened public comment at 7:19 p.m.

Jim McFarland with Zoning Resources introduced himself as the

representative for the application. He shared that Ohio Gastro and Ohio

Psych are excited to be dual tenants in the facility, and thanked the

Commission for their consideration of the application. He explained that

the monument sign was initially helpful to identify Ohio Gastro. However,

there will be two businesses in the facility and clearer identification is

necessary. Ohio Gastro tried to work as closely within code as possible.

He felt the variance request was de minimus and that it would help

patrons identify the building.

Chair Pollyea closed public comment at 7:21 p.m.

Mr. Mako asked the administration if the sign requiring a variance would

face Buckles Court, which Ms. Capka confirmed. Mr. Mako asked if this

application was similar to that of a variance application for signs at

Orthopedic One that was heard by the Commission in the past year. Ms.

Capka confirmed, noting that they both had frontage on the highway, and

this application had less signage than Orthopedic One.ꢀ

Mr. Tamarkin asked if the building was fully leased, though Mr.

McFarland was unsure. Ms. Capka stated her assumption the building

was fully leased due to the fact that there are only two tenant spaces. Mr.

Tamarkin noted that the Commission could hear an application for

another sign if there is a third tenant that moves in. Ms. Capka explained

there were only two tenant spaces on the building permit. Mr. Tamarkin

then pointed out that if a tenant moves out, the variance as approved

stays with the building. But any additional signage would require another

variance or a master sign plan. Ms. Capka agreed, adding that if there

are many more than two tenants in the future staff would likely

recommend a master sign plan.ꢀ

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

Approved.

Discussion on the motion:

Ms. Pollyea explained she would be in support of the application primarily

because there were similar applications recently, in which signage variances

were approved for wayfinding and visibility purposes.ꢀ

The motion carried by the following vote:

6 - Mako, Chair Pollyea, Vice Chair Suriano, Tamarkin, Greenberg and Laser

1 - Shapaka

Yes:

Absent:

V-0026-2025

To consider

Development

Variance Application to vary section 1103.07(e)

Standards: Large Lot Residential (R-1): Codified

Ordinances of the City of Gahanna; for property located at 559 Wickham

Way; Parcel ID 025-004606; Current Zoning R-1 - Large Lot Residential;

Angela and Thomas Austin, applicants.

City Planner Maddie Capka provided a summary of the application; see

attached staff presentation. The property is located at 559 Wickham Way

and is zoned Large Lot Residential (R-1). The applicant is requesting

approval of a variance to allow a shed within a side-yard setback. For all

properties zoned R1, there is a 10-foot side and rear yard setback for all

accessory structures. And this shed encroaches five feet into the north

side yard setback. In this case, this is an existing shed that was already

on the property and was moved to a new

location. In the shed’s previous location, it fully met all setback

requirements, but the shed was moved prior to city approval or any

permits. So, a variance application is now required because it no longer

complies with code. There's also a 10-foot sanitary sewer easement

along the rear property line, and the property owner agreed that the shed

will not encroach into the easement.ꢀ

Ms. Capka shared a site plan outlining the new location of the shed in

yellow. It is five feet from the northern property line and 10 feet from the

east property line. She noted the shed’s previous location just south of

the yellow box. In its previous location, the shed was 10 feet from the rear

property line and more than 10 feet from the north property line. Red lines

on the site plan indicated the location of the 10-foot side and rear

setbacks, and the 10-foot easement as measured from the east property

line. The applicant noted on the site plan that the southern portion of their

yard slopes downward, so the shed could not be located in that area. The

applicant also had a survey done. Ms. Capka shared an image in which

the survey markers were placed.ꢀ

One variance is included with this application. Per second 1103.07(e),

accessory structures must be at least 10 feet from the side property lines.

In this case, the shed is only five feet from the north property line. Ms.

Capka shared the variance criteria. They are:

The variance is not likely to result in substantial damage 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 government

services;

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 cannot be achieved

through another method;

The variance is not likely to undermine the objectives of the Land

Use Plan;

Whetherꢀ 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.

Chair Pollyea opened public comment at 7:28 p.m.

Ms. Angela Austin, 559 Wickham Way, introduced herself as the property

owner. Ms. Austin explained that if the variance was not granted, the

shed would have to be torn down with no place for their lawnmower. She

elaborated on the yard, noting the flat area is limited and some of the

yard slopes. They simply pivoted the shed, and it is now five feet from the

property line. On the other side, it will be ten feet from the property line to

be in compliance of the sewer easement.ꢀ

Lynn Talarico, 561 Wickham Way, introduced herself as Ms. Austin’s

neighbor to the north. She stated she had no objection to the shed.ꢀ

Chair Pollyea closed public at 7:30 p.m.ꢀ

Mr. Mako asked the applicant for the square footage of the shed, which

Ms. Austin said was 8 feet by 10 feet. She described it as at least 20

years old. She added that they moved into the house in the fall and the

backyard was mostly dirt and rocks. They wanted to improve the

backyard and have more space to use and play with their grandchildren,

so they put down sod, planted trees, and pivoted the shed. Mr. Mako

asked whether the city required her to have a survey conducted. Ms.

Austin replied that it was their own choice and they wanted to understand

where their property lines were.ꢀ

Ms. Laser questioned what would happen if a different neighbor moved

into the neighboring property, and whether the shed would affect anything

a neighbor may want to do on their own property. Ms. Austin stated that if

the neighbor stays within their own property lines, her shed would not

have an effect on any future projects.ꢀ

Mr. Greenberg wondered if there was more stored in the shed than just a

lawnmower. Ms. Austin explained it is used to store a multitude of tools.ꢀ

Ms. Pollyea inquired about the age and stability of the shed, and whether

another variance would be needed if the shed was torn down, or if the

variance applied to the property. Ms. Capka explained the variance

would apply for the life of the property.ꢀ

Mr. Mako noted there are four variances on the meeting agenda, and that

two of them are for the same section of code. Ms. Capka explained that

staff is considering code changes to reduce side yard setbacks, but

nothing is finalized.ꢀ

A motion was made by Tamarkin, seconded by Greenberg, that the Variance

be Approved.

Discussion on the motion:

Mr. Suriano stated he was in favor of the application.ꢀ

Mr. Tamarkin expressed his favor for the variance as well, considering a

neighbor voiced their support.ꢀ

Ms. Pollyea also said she was in favor of the variance, adding the suggestion

that the applicant double check code prior to moving it in the future.ꢀ

The motion carried by the following vote:

6 - Mako, Chair Pollyea, Vice Chair Suriano, Tamarkin, Greenberg and Laser

1 - Shapaka

Yes:

Absent:

V-0027-2025

To consider a Variance Application to vary Section 1109.01(h)(1) -

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

of Gahanna; for property located at 817 North Hamilton Road; Parcel ID

025-001918; Current Zoning RI - Restricted Institutional; One Church;

Brent Allen, applicant.

City Planner Maddie Capka provided a summary of the application; see

attached staff presentation. Ms. Capka provided a development history

on the site as it relates to the current application. In October of 2023, a

gravel lot was installed on the site without city approvals. That same

month, a notice of violation was issued by Code Enforcement, and the

applicant was required to submit Design Review and Variance

applications in order to keep the gravel lot. The applications went before

the Planning Commission in June of 2024, and the variance was

approved with an expiration date of December 31, 2024. At that time,

construction for an auditorium and parking lot project was planned to

begin by the end of 2024. The applicant stated they would remove the

parking lot once construction began. In August of 2024, Final

Development Plan, Design Review, and Variance applications for the

auditorium and new parking areas was denied by Planning Commission

due to concerns regarding screening, landscaping, and the removal of

trees. Then, on December 31, 2024, the previous variance approval

expired. The applicant was required to submit a new Variance

application to continue the use of the gravel lot; that application was

denied in January of 2025. At that point, the gravel lot was in violation of

the zoning code again. In May of 2025, revised Development Plan and

Variance applications for the auditorium and parking areas were

approved. This most recent variance application is to extend the use of

the existing gravel parking lot. The lot currently does not conform with the

zoning code and requires approval of a new variance application to

remain. If this variance application is denied, the gravel lot must be

removed. There were no changes to the lot since the previous variance

application in January. It is still around 23,000 square feet, can

accommodate around 70 vehicles, and is 21 feet from the edge of the

right-of-way. The applicant states that the lot would be used as a staging

area during construction, and would be removed once construction is

complete.

Ms. Capka shared two site plans. One site plan provided the location of

the gravel lot today, with the other showing a portion of the site plan that

was approved by Planning Commission in May 2025. That site plan

shows a new parking lot in the same area where the gravel lot is now. By

the time construction is complete, the gravel lot will be removed and

replaced by a new hard-surface parking lot. Ms. Capka shared the

standard variance criteria to be considered. They are:ꢀ

The variance is not likely to result in substantial damage 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 government

services;

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 cannot be achieved

through another method;

The variance is not likely to undermine the objectives of the Land

Use Plan;

Whetherꢀ 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.

There is one variance being requested with the application, which is to

the section of code that states all parking areas must be hard-surfaced.

In this case, the parking lot is gravel and does not meet the hard surface

requirement. Staff recommends approval of this variance application.

The project was approved by the Planning Commission and is in the

building permitting process. The applicant stated they will remove the

gravel lot by the end of construction. If approved, staff recommend adding

a deadline of October 31, 2027, as two years is a reasonable time for all

permits to be issued and for construction to end and the gravel lot to be

removed. Staff would not recommend approval of any further extensions

past October 31, 2027.

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

Brent Allen, Operations Director of One Church, introduced himself. Mr.

Allen thanked the Planning Department for their help. He added that their

ask is to continue to park on the gravel lot until their planned construction

begins.ꢀ

Chair Pollyea closed public comment at 7:42 p.m.ꢀ

Mr. Mako asked how the space would be used for construction staging,

and what type of security measures One Church would have. Mr. Allen

replied that Weaver Construction of Dalton, Ohio, would handle security

measures. Mr. Mako asked whether the applicant could finish the project

by the October 31, 2027, deadline suggested by staff. Mr. Allen stated

they would be able to. He added that once construction begins, it would

become a staging area, and no cars would be able to park on the gravel

lot. Mr. Mako wondered if for some reason they could not make the

deadline, whether One Church would return for an additional variance.

Mr. Allen explained that if needed, they would have to return for

permission to use the gravel lot as a staging area, but not for parking.ꢀ

Mr. Suriano asked whether the project was permitted yet. Mr. Allen

explained it was not permitted yet, but it was in the permitting process.ꢀ

Ms. Laser asked where the attendees who use the gravel lot would park

once construction starts. Mr. Allen stated they would be shuttled from the

Ohio State medical facility parking lot, located across Hamilton Road.ꢀ

Mr. Greenberg asked if there were any environmental permits for issues

such as fugitive dust. Ms. Capka stated she was not aware of such a

requirement. Mr. Allen also stated he was not aware of any environmental

permits. Mr. Greenberg asked if the recommended date needed to be

added to the motion. Assistant City Attorney Roth said that if the

Commission would like to add a date for the Variance to expire, it should

be included in the motion. Additionally, Ms. Capka stated that while the

Planning staff only suggested a condition on the timeline, the

Commission could include a statement indicating there would be no

additional Variances provided beyond October 31, 2027, if it wished to

add that information.ꢀ

Ms. Pollyea asked when construction would begin. Mr. Allen replied it

would start as soon as permits were received by the city. They hoped to

begin construction as early as November, 2025. He felt very confident

that the October 31, 2027, deadline was reasonable, and that One

Church would not have to ask for additional time.ꢀ

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

Approved with a condition that the Variance will expire October 31, 2027, with

no extensions.

Discussion on the motion:

Ms. Pollyea expressed hope that the project could move forward in a timely

manner.

The motion carried by the following vote:

5 - Mako, Chair Pollyea, Tamarkin, Greenberg and Laser

1 - Shapaka

Yes:

Absent:

Abstain:

1 - Vice Chair Suriano

UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None

NEW BUSINESS - None

OFFICIAL REPORTS

Assistant City Attorney

Assistant City Attorney Roth stated that the Board of Zoning & Building

Appeals (BZBA) met the prior evening to hear the appeal for the pool

cabana at 400 Braemer Court. It was rejected by the BZBA; the applicant

may submit a final appeal to Franklin County courts. Attorney Roth

explained that during the BZBA appeal, the contractor described the

difficulties that would be involved in making the structure shorter.ꢀ

Director of Planning

Director Blackford reminded the Commission that the meeting schedule

changes to the first and third Wednesdays during November and

December, and that the next meeting was scheduled for November 5th.

He then discussed an article he shared, which was attached to the

agenda, regarding legal actions experienced by Genoa Township. He

remarked that the article is a reminder that the Planning Commission's

role is to uphold the laws in place, and it should be cautious when

weighing input from neighbors and members of the public.