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, August 13, 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 August 13,

2025. The agenda for this meeting was published on August 8, 2025.

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

Pledge of Allegiance led by Sarah Pollyea.

6 -

Present

Absent

John Hicks, James Mako, Sarah Pollyea, Michael Tamarkin, Thomas W.

Shapaka, and Michael Greenberg

1 - Michael Suriano

ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA

Deputy Clerk McGuire explained that item CU-0001-2025 would be

removed due to a scheduling conflict.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2025-0153

Planning Commission meeting minutes 6.25.2025

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

Approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

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

1 - Suriano

Yes:

Absent:

SWEAR IN APPLICANTS & SPEAKERS

APPLICATIONS - PUBLIC COMMENT

V-0019-2025

To consider a Variance Application to vary Section 1103.07(e) - Large

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

property located at 400 Braemer Court; Parcel ID 025-011408; Current

Zoning R-1 - Large Lot Residential; Corey Schoo, applicant.

City Planner Maddie Capka introduced the application; see attached

staff presentation. The application is a variance request for 400 Braemer

Court. Capka shared the zoning map, identifying the property with a red

star. The property is zoned R-1, which is Large Lot Residential, similar

with the rest of the neighborhood.

Capka shared a brief history of the application. In November of 2024,

there was a variance application for a pool house at the subject property.

At that time, a pool house with a height of 17 feet was proposed, which

exceeded the maximum structure height allowed by code by 2 feet. At

that meeting, Capka reported that staff incorrectly stated that if the

structure was reduced to 16 ½ feet in height, then it would be

administratively approvable. Capka explained this could be done through

something called a De Minimis Variance. A De Minimis Variance

essentially is when a development/design feature deviates from code

10% or less. In such cases, the application could be administratively

considered. However, the 10% deviation cannot be applied to structure

or building height. Therefore, for the pool house to exceed 15 feet, a

variance application approved by the Planning Commission is required.

In January, the plans on the building permit were revised to show the pool

house at 16 ½ feet tall. At this time staff reached out to the applicant

through the office’s permitting software, over email, and by phone to state

that the maximum permitted height is actually 15 feet and not 16 ½ feet

as previously misstated. Revised plans were required in order to

approve the building permit, however, those plans were never provided

to staff. At present, the building permit is still open and is not approved,

with no building inspections performed. That same month, code

enforcement issued a violation notice at the site because the pool house

was built without approved building permits. In May, the new variance

application was submitted by the applicant in order to address the

outstanding code violation. The applicant is now requesting approval of

another variance to allow for the pool house to exceed the maximum

height for accessory structures.

The pool house is 542 square feet and is now 16 1/2 feet tall instead of

17 feet tall. The maximum height for accessory structures in residential

districts is 15 feet. The structure is between 9.9 and 12 feet from the side

northern property line, and approximately 23 feet from the rear property

line. The applicant states that the reason for the increased height above

15 feet is to allow for more sun onto the deck. There is an existing 4-foot

tall fence around the backyard and some tall trees along the rear property

line that partially screen the structure. There are no trees or additional

landscaping along the north property line between the structure and that

adjacent property.

Capka shared a site plan showing the location of the pool house in red,

along with the 4-foot-tall fence that goes around the pool house in the

backyard. Capka noted that the pool house is the closest to the northern

property line, in the area with no additional screening besides the fence.

Capka provided an image of the structure taken from along Braemer

Court. The variance being requested is for Chapter 1103.07(e), which

states that the maximum height for accessory structures is 15 feet. The

proposed pool house exceeds that by 1½ . Capka provided an

explanation of variance criteria that must be met in order for the

application to be approved. Staff recommended disapproval of the

variance as submitted, as there are no special circumstances to

necessitate a variance in this case. Additionally, staff is unaware of any

other accessory structures in this area that exceed 15 feet. As shown in

the street view image, the fence is only four feet high and does not

screen the majority of the structure and therefore is very visible from the

right-of-way as well as the property to the north. The applicant and the

property owner were notified many times through multiple means that the

structure height needed to be reduced, however the applicant was

nonresponsive and application materials were not adjusted. However, a

1½ foot increase is minor in nature and the height was reduced by 6

inches between the present and the previous application.

Chair Hicks opened public comment at 7:08 p.m.

John Esterby, 400 Braemer Court, introduced himself to the Commission

as the property owner. Mr. Esterby noted the previous decision was split,

and the variance application failed. He noted that all parties were under

the impression that the project could be administratively approvable. He

acknowledged that negligence is not an excuse, though he noted that

they did not receive any type of notice, and therefore installed the

already-built structure. Mr. Esterby noted that his neighbor along the north

side was present to support the application. He explained that the

impetus for the project in this location of the yard was for those living in

the home to maximize their ability to enjoy the sunlight, depending on the

time of day.

Eric Jones introduced himself as an adjacent neighbor to Mr. Esterby.

Mr. Jones explained there is a large maple tree, among other trees, that

screen the pergola. He had not heard of any issues that other neighbors

had with the pergola, and felt it looked great. He explained his own intent

to plant more trees on his property simply to add shade, but not because

of the pergola. He again stated he thought it was a well-designed and

nice-looking structure.

Chair Hicks closed public comment at 7:12 p.m.

Mr. Greenberg asked Deputy Clerk McGuire if there was other feedback

from neighbors. Ms. McGuire replied there was not. Mr. Greenberg then

asked the applicant if there were additional plans to screen, such as

more trees or a larger fence. Mr. Esterby explained there was discussion

of planting arborvitae along the back, but noted the neighbor did not have

any concerns with the pergola. Mr. Corey Schoo, contractor and

applicant, provided additional comments. He stated the installation

started November 8, 2024, and was completed on December 2, 2024.

Mr. Greenberg asked if Mr. Schoo was aware of height restrictions within

the code when the project was being built. Mr. Schoo replied that he was

not aware at the time, prompting the first variance application. He

explained the applicants’ understanding, per the last Planning

Commission meeting, was that if the structure was reduced by a ½ foot,

to 16½ feet, the application could be approved administratively. He

believed drawings could be resubmitted and inspections could be done.

However, he stated he did not receive a reply after submitting for

inspections. Mr. Greenberg asked if the building could be modified for it

to meet the 15-foot height requirement. Mr. Schoo explained that it would

be possible, yet challenging. He elaborated that the upper rafters could

be cut back, though they were already reduced to limit the structure’s

height, after the first application was denied. Another option was to jack

the building up, cut the bottoms, and drop it back down. He reiterated that

it would be very challenging, though not impossible. He explained that the

plans were designed to have a balance of aesthetics. Mr. Greenberg

then asked Mr. Esterby about the communication, and whether Mr.

Esterby received the City of Gahanna’s communications. Mr. Esterby

stated he had not, though he was not a primary contact on the

application, with Mr. Schoo as the primary contact.

Mr. Tamarkin asked Mr. Schoo if it was standard to begin construction

without building permits. Mr. Schoo stated it was not, but reiterated that

upon leaving the previous meeting in November 2024, he believed

revised drawings needed to be resubmitted showing the height of the

structure reduced to 16 ½ feet. Mr. Schoo understood staff’s previous

comment on height as permission to proceed. Mr. Tamarkin stated he

went back through the minutes and understood where there could be

confusion between 17, 16 ½, and 15 feet. However, he struggled to

understand why the structure was built without full approvals. He added

that even with administrative approval, the approval was still required by

staff prior to building the structure. Mr. Schoo stated he had the stamped

building plans on site while waiting for all the correct paperwork. Mr.

Tamarkin asked staff if stamped building plans were the same as

permits. Director Blackford stated that they are separate items, and

explained that plan approval is a state requirement, while a permit is a

local requirement. Director Blackford reiterated staff’s attempts to

contact the applicant to gain compliance. The communications went to

the applicant, which was the contractor in this case. Mr. Esterby

explained that he received a notice for the code violation around March

of 2025.

Mr. Shapaka felt that cutting back the overhang to meet the requirement

the applicant thought they had to meet was a good move for the

applicant. He said he had no questions, only comments.

Mr. Mako asked staff if a zoning certificate would be issued before a

structure, such as the pergola was constructed. Ms. Capka replied that

due to the size of the structure, a building permit would be issued in this

instance. The zoning division does review the permits and comments on

them, however.

Ms. Pollyea asked the applicant to clarify what address was used for the

correspondence. Mr. Schoo replied he had a warehouse in West

Jefferson where mail is received. However, those notices were not

received. He received the code violation through the online portal and

informed the homeowner. He did not recall any voicemails left by

Planning staff. Ms. Pollyea asked staff if there was a way to verify what

phone numbers and addresses were used for communication. Ms.

Capka replied that the phone numbers are listed in the permitting portal,

and staff has records of the emails that were sent. Ms. Capka said

comments on the application are sent through the portal and go directly

to the applicants’ email. Then, they are also emailed outside of the portal

and contacted through the phone number listed on the application.

Capka reported that the phone number listed in the portal and the one on

the application were called, and that voicemails that were left were not

returned. She explained that physical notices for the code enforcement

violations would go to the property owner rather than the contractor. Mr.

Schoo asked whether the communication being referenced was for the

code violation or something else. Ms. Pollyea explained that she was

inquiring about communication from administrative staff when they were

attempting to reach him to let him know they had made a mistake

regarding the height allowance. Mr. Schoo said he was not in receipt of

that communication, and stated he maintains detailed records.

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

Approved.

Discussion on the motion:

Mr. Tamarkin remarked this was a challenging situation, noting that the

structure was already built and that any changes would be expensive. He

expressed disappointment at the way the project was handled. He

acknowledged that he was not the architect, but felt it would be possible to

reduce the height to be in compliance without fully lifting the structure up. He

stated that he was supportive of the project when it was initially presented to

Planning Commission, and that he expected to again this time, though he

reiterated it is a challenging situation all around.

Mr. Shapaka noted that neighbors have no concerns and felt the structure

looked good. He explained that in his experience as an architect, sometimes

the height is measured at the midspan of the roof rather than the peak,

because the peak is such a small percentage of the overall height. He said that

it would have been nice if the contractor had known 15 feet was the limit, and

that perhaps something different could have been done with the pitch.

However, he felt that the overhang should be kept. He thanked the contractor

for reducing the height to 16 ½ feet, anticipating that the new height would be

compliant. He felt it was an unusual situation but said that he was in favor of

the project.

Mr. Mako stated that he was not previously in favor and would not be in favor

again. He did not feel the variance criteria was met and expressed

disappointment at the chain of events. He felt a contractor should not build

something without the necessary plan approvals. Additionally, from a zoning

standpoint, he did not feel the criteria was met. He stated his intent to vote no

on the application.

Ms. Pollyea stated she had previously voted against the application and would

be doing so again. She felt the necessity was not present. In her opinion, the

sun exposure did not meet the criteria for necessity. Additionally, she felt the

contractor should have been more proactive, such as additional follow-up with

the administration.

Mr. Hicks stated that he was not at the meeting in which this project was first

discussed, and noted the communication breakdown was unfortunate. He did

not feel the variance meets criteria, and stated he was not in favor.

The motion failed by the following vote:

2 - Tamarkin and Shapaka

4 - Hicks, Mako, Pollyea and Greenberg

1 - Suriano

Yes:

No:

Absent:

V-0020-2025

To consider

Variance Application to vary Section 1103.15(e)

Innovation and Manufacturing - Development Standards of the Codified

Ordinances of the City of Gahanna; for property located at 909 Taylor

Station Road; Parcel ID 025-006726; Current Zoning IM - Innovation and

Manufacturing; Darin Ranker, applicant.

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

attached staff presentation. The application is for a variance at 875 and

909 Taylor Station Road. The site is zoned innovation and manufacturing,

along with the majority of the adjacent parcels. She shared a zoomed-in

aerial view of the site outlined in red. The site used to be two separate

parcels that were recently combined. There are two existing separate

warehouse buildings currently on the site. Capka also noted the location

of Rosen, which is the adjacent neighbor that would be most affected by

the variance. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance for a

25,000 square foot building addition to encroach into a rear yard

setback. The addition would connect the two existing warehouses that

are now on one parcel. The addition would include space for a storage

cooler/ freezer and a service corridor, and would only be located nine

feet from the rear property line. The zoning code requires a setback of 20

feet. Side yard setbacks are met. The applicant states that there is a

main gas line for the southern building that runs through the middle of the

site. Due to this, the addition cannot be moved out of the setback.

The application presented is a variance for the setback. If the application

is approved, a Development Plan will be required in the future prior to

construction. Capka shared a site plan showing the location of the

addition in red with the proposed nine-foot setback shown in blue. Capka

shared elevations showing what the addition would look like, as well as

another rendering showing size and location of the addition.

The request pertains to Chapter 1103.15(e) of the City of Gahanna

Zoning Code, which states that the required rear yard setback for

innovation and manufacturing is 20 feet. Capka shared the standard

variance criteria that must be met in order for the application to be

approved. Staff had no objection to the variance request. There is an

existing 7-foot-tall fence on the Rosen property that is between the

addition and the adjacent property. Capka also noted staff received

public comment from Rosen indicating they are in support of the variance

application. Staff did not believe that granting the variance would have

any negative effects on the area.

Chair Hicks opened public comment at 7:34 p.m.

Chris Jolley of Darin Ranker Architects introduced himself to the

Commission. He stated HT Hackney has operated out of 875 Taylor

Station Road and recently acquired the building to the south, 909 Taylor

Station Road, to expand their operations. They rent a facility for their

cooler and freezer needs. It is offsite, and they plan to bring all operations

onsite. They need 20,000 square feet of cooler and freezer space, plus

some additional space for forklift trucks to access the loading dock,

totaling 25,000 square feet.

Chair Hicks closed public comment at 7:36 p.m.

Mr. Greenberg asked if any neighboring properties sent in feedback.

Deputy Clerk McGuire summarized the correspondence from a Rosen

representative, which included a request to add lighting to the west side

of the proposed building, and to address parking concerns on

Technology Drive. See legislative file for full text. Mr. Greenberg asked

the applicant whether the neighbors’ concerns could be addressed. Mr.

Jolley noted that lighting could be addressed depending on the specific

location. He noted that they would not want to put lighting near a property

line, which may be a zoning restriction. However, he stated that lighting

could be added in the loading area, which is a bit dim. Director Blackford

noted that lighting would be evaluated at a later stage.

Mr. Tamarkin asked if the two existing buildings are the same height and

at the same ground level. Mr. Jolley replied that the buildings are close

enough that the difference could be made up, and the slope was

negligible.

Mr. Shapaka asked what was envisioned for the 11-foot space between

the site and Rosen, the adjacent property. Mr. Jolley explained there is

existing fence that would remain, and a grass strip would be maintained.

If the Commission desired additional landscape screening, Mr. Jolley

explained that it could be accommodated. Mr. Shapaka noted that the

20-foot setback serves partially as a fire lane, which is typically 15 feet.

He then asked if the gas line, which is partially the cause of the variance

application, was an internal easement or if the utility was running between

the two properties before they were combined. Mr. Jolley stated he was

not aware of an easement. He added that he also spoke with the Fire

Marshall and Chief Building Officer Ken Fultz. There will be three-hour fire

barriers separating the addition from the existing structures and the

property line.

Mr. Mako asked if his interpretation of the schematics was correct, that

the reason it was bumped out was because of truck loading in the back.

Mr. Jolley confirmed the locations of existing and planned loading dock

spaces. Mr. Mako also inquired about trailer parking, and wondered if

trailer parking would be an issue with the approval of the variance. Mr.

Jolley said there were no additional needs for truck parking. There will be

some employee parking added, though.

Ms. Pollyea asked if the lots were purchased separately and then

combined. Mr. Jolley explained his understanding that HT Hackney

owned 875 Taylor Station, which is the northern structure, then acquired

909 Taylor Station, and combined the parcels. The addition straddles the

former property line.

Chair Hicks asked whether the facility owner uses Tech Center Drive for

parking, recalling earlier comments submitted via email. Mr. Jolley stated

he was unaware whether Tech Center Drive was used. Mr. Hicks noted

the concern about lighting, and asked Mr. Jolley if it would be taken into

consideration as plans were developed, which Mr. Jolley confirmed.

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

be Approved.

Discussion on the motion:

Mr. Greenberg stated he would be in favor of the application, but echoed

hopes that the neighbors’ concerns would be considered in the development of

the plans.

The motion carried by the following vote:

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

1 - Suriano

Yes:

Absent:

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS - NONE

OFFICIAL REPORTS

Director of Planning

Director Blackford provided a Planning Department update to the

Planning Commission. He began with an overview of the department.

There are 10 staff members total within the department, which make up

three divisions. The three divisions are the Building, Code Enforcement,

and Zoning divisions. Between all staff members, there is over 115 years

of Gahanna-specific experience within the department. Director

Blackford said he is in his 11th year, placing him fifth in seniority.

The Building Division authorizes vertical construction. Director Blackford

explained the new OpenGov software, elaborating on the differences

between the new and former systems. The new software allows external

customers to find information online and increases transparency. It also

reduces the burden on staff, allowing staff to increase productivity in other

areas. Department accomplishments include the permitting software

installation.

Director Blackford shared information on the Code Enforcement division.

There were around 1296 cases in 2024, with about 3 ½ inspections

performed per case. As of August 11, 2025, there are 951 cases for the

year. Frequently asked questions include misunderstandings on what is a

code enforcement issue compared to a police issue, such as cars

parked inappropriately, or noise complaints. Complaints about tall grass

and weeds are most prevalent in the warmer months. Accomplishments

for the division include warrants. Code Enforcement can only issue

violations and citations, but until recently could not issue warrants. Now,

warrants can be issued and properties are becoming more compliant

with city codes.

Director Blackford provided a summary of the Planning and Zoning

Division. The top question the division receives is when an applicant's

hearing date is, followed by what are a property’s setbacks. Division

accomplishments include the implementation of permitting software and

zoning code updates.

Departmental priorities are centered around continuous process

improvements. Director Blackford highlighted key 2025 priorities, such

as the move to 825 Tech Center Drive. He closed by sharing project

updates for the Crescent at Central Park, 825 Tech Center Drive, the

Gahanna Commerce Center, and Morse Road and Johnstown Road

apartments.

Mr. Greenberg asked, hypothetically, if he were to obtain a permit, does

action need to be taken within a certain amount of time after obtaining

the permit. Director Blackford believed there was an expiration date

around six months to one year. Final Development Plans include specific

language for when construction must commence.

Ms. Pollyea thanked Director Blackford for the presentation. She had a

question pertaining to code violations. She asked whether they primarily

come through complaints or if staff notices the violations in their course of

work. Director Blackford said that about two-thirds of violations are from

code enforcement officers and one-third are submitted by residents. The

online portal allows residents to submit violations, which are then

investigated. The violations themselves are public records, though

reporting individuals sometimes do not use their given names or

identifying email addresses.

Mr. Mako asked Director Blackford the name of the specific software

used for daily processes. Director Blackford explained that OpenGov is

the name of the software, and that the department is happy with it, after

extensive testing. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, just under 50% of

municipalities used any type of software. The department had good

procedures in place already, and the new software works well so far. Mr.

Mako then inquired about the Land Use Plan, and whether there were

updates planned for it. Director Blackford confirmed that a modest

refresh for the plan was anticipated for 2026, at the earliest, and a

third-party consultant may be hired to oversee it. Mr. Mako then remarked

on how impressive it was to have 115 years of experience within a

department.

Mr. Shapaka echoed Mr. Mako’s sentiments, noting that averaging 10-15

years of experience per person indicates that staff are staying with the

department long-term. He wondered if work without a permit began, and

then a permit is later granted, whether there were fines for applicants.

Director Blackford stated that fines are doubled in that case. If needed,

citations can be issued and an individual may be required to go to

Mayor’s Court. However, the Magistrate cannot solve the issue simply

with a fine, and cannot waive code. If a project is still in violation, citations

can continue to be issued. Mr. Shapaka noted that in some places there

can be a financial way out of a violation, and that while he would not want

to set precedent, he noted that some municipalities offer a financial

workaround to the citation. Director Blackford expressed that sometimes

staff has to be the bearer of bad news, but that they have the same goal

as the applicant, which is to see a project through to the end as quickly

and as easily as possible. Mr. Shapaka thanked the Planning

Department for their work.

Council Liaison

Ms. Pollyea explained that the Strategic Plan is entering its next phase.

The first two phases were about gathering information from residents.

There will be a celebration at Creekside on August 26, 2025, from

4:00-7:00 p.m. The theme is sweet treats. At the most recent Committee

of the Whole meeting, Senior Director of Operations Kevin Schultz gave

a presentation on a possible Creekside redevelopment plan with flood

improvement plans for the parking garage, due to its proximity to the Big

Walnut Creek. Both the upper and lower plazas will be improved upon.

Improvements will include an amphitheater and a splash pad. The total

anticipated cost is approximately $23 million, which would be covered by

both the City of Gahanna, the property owner of Creekside, and grant

funds. An anticipated timeline is approximately 18 to 24 months. Ms.

Pollyea also shared that the tax abatement previously discussed did not

pass a City Council vote on August 4, 2025. Designs for the project had

previously been approved by the Planning Commission.

Mayor

Mayor Jadwin reiterated Ms. Pollyea’s comments regarding the

Creekside flood mitigation work that must be done. The work also

includes lifting pavers to improve waterproofing underneath to help

prevent flooding in the garage. Additionally, residents had opportunities

to weigh in on what they would like to see at Creekside in recent years,

and improvements are planned based on that feedback. Mayor Jadwin

stated the Creekside redevelopment is one of about nine capital

improvement projects that are currently being planned. Mayor Jadwin

also expanded on the August 26, 2025, event. It will be an ice cream

social, with attendees receiving a coupon for a treat at any one of the

businesses at Creekside. She said that Creekside has resonated within

every demographic of the community in terms of what people want to see

improved. Residents want a vibrant Creekside District, and now the City

of Gahanna needs to consider what it needs to do in order to make that

happen. She encouraged members of the Planning Commission to drive

by the 825 Tech Center building to see the progress. Mayor Jadwin said

the building will elevate the level of service that the City can provide

residents, and expressed that she is most excited for the new Senior

Center space.

Chair

Chair Hicks shared a brief health update, noting that he was absent at

the prior Planning Commission meeting. He suffered a grand mal seizure

at home, prior to the June 25, 2025, meeting. His wife was able to

resuscitate him until paramedics arrived. He expressed gratitude for her

role. Mr. Hicks indicated he is feeling better and began to regain energy.

Chair Hicks then shared his resignation with the Planning Commission.

He stated that his family is moving out of the City of Gahanna, regrettably

rendering him ineligible for a seat on any boards or commissions. He

shared that he was a member of the Commission since 2017, and

remarked on the many interesting applications that the Commission

encountered over the years. He said he enjoyed his time on the

Commission and working with all its members.

CORRESPONDENCE AND ACTIONS - NONE

POLL MEMBERS FOR COMMENT

Commission members expressed disappointment at the resignation of

Mr. Hicks.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the

meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m.