200 South Hamilton Road

Gahanna, Ohio 43230

City of Gahanna

Meeting Minutes

Planning Commission

Sarah Pollyea, Chair

Michael Suriano, Vice Chair

Michael Greenberg

Elizabeth Laser

James Mako

Thomas Shapaka

Michael Tamarkin

Sophia McGuire, Deputy Clerk of Council

Wednesday, January 14, 2026

6:30 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

Organizational Meeting begins at 6:30 PM, immediately followed by the Regular Meeting

OATHS OF OFFICE: MAYOR LAURIE A. JADWIN

Mayor Laurie Jadwin administered the oaths of office to Elizabeth Laser

and Michael Tamarkin, who will each serve a three-year term ending

December 31, 2028.

CALL MEETING TO ORDER (Organizational) / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Gahanna Planning Commission met for the Organizational meeting on

January 14, 2026. The agenda for this meeting was published on

January 9, 2026. Mayor Laurie Jadwin called the meeting to order at

6:33 p.m.

6 -

Present

Absent

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

Greenberg, Elizabeth Laser, and Michael Tamarkin

1 - Thomas W. Shapaka

Mr. Shapaka arrived at 6:54 p.m.

ELECTION OF CHAIR

Mayor Jadwin opened the floor for nominations for Planning Commission

Chair. Michael Tamarkin nominated Sarah Pollyea as Chair. Ms. Pollyea

accepted the nomination. With no additional nominations, Mayor Jadwin

closed nominations.

Motion was made by Greenberg, seconded by Mako, to elect Sarah Pollyea as

Planning Commission Chair.

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

Yes:

1 - Shapaka

Absent:

ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR

Chair Pollyea opened the floor for nominations for Vice Chair. Mr.

Greenberg nominated Michael Suriano as Planning Commission Vice

Chair. Mr. Suriano accepted the nomination. With no other nominations,

Chair Pollyea closed nominations.

A motion was made by Greenberg, seconded by Tamarkin, to elect Michael

Suriano as Planning Commission Vice Chair.

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

1 - Shapaka

Yes:

Absent:

ESTABLISH DAY AND TIME OF REGULAR MEETINGS

Chair Pollyea opened the discussion for the 2026 meeting schedule. She

proposed the Commission meet once per month, on the second

Wednesday of each month at 6:30 p.m., except for the November

meeting, which would be held on the first Wednesday of the month.

Mr. Mako stated the standard in the region is for Planning Commission to

meet once per month, and stated his support for the proposed schedule.

Ms. Laser explained a scheduling conflict, noting her preference to meet

at 7:00 p.m.

Chair Pollyea set the meeting schedule for the second Wednesday each

month, with the November meet falling on the first Wednesday of the

month due to the Veteran's Day holiday. Meetings will begin at 6:30 p.m.

PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATION ASSIGNED BY CHAIR

Council Liaison

Chair Pollyea assigned Elizabeth Laser as Council Liaison.

ADJOURNMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING

There being no further business, the Organizational meeting was

adjourned at 6:38 p.m.

********************************************************************

CALL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ROLL CALL

Gahanna Planning Commission met in regular session on January 14,

2026. The agenda for this meeting was published on January 9. 2026.

Chair Sarah Pollyea called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m.

ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2026-0007

Planning Commission meeting minutes 12.3.2025

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

Approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

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

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-0001-2026

To consider a Variance Application to vary Sections 1109.05(e)(1)(A)/

(D) - Fences of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Gahanna; for

property located at 4171 Clotts Road; Parcel 025-001983; Current

Zoning ER - Estate Residential; Megan Workman, applicant.

City Planner Maddie Capka introduced the application; see attached

staff presentation. Ms. Capka explained that the property is zoned ER -

Estate Residential. Estate Residential properties have at least one acre

and are not located within a subdivision. The applicant requested a

Variance to allow a fence within a front yard setback; there are two

fences as part of the project. The first fence is a four-foot-tall split-rail

fence that would be fully within the front yard. The second fence is a

six-foot-tall privacy fence that would be along the west property line

between the subject home and the adjacent property. Zoning Code

allows decorative open fences 42 inches tall or less in front yards, and

the split-rail fence exceeds code by six inches. Additionally, a portion of

the privacy fence also extends past the front elevation of the house.

Capka explained that to the rear of the property, there is a large pond

and creek that are both located within a 100-year floodplain, limiting the

area in which a fence can be installed.

Capka shared a site plan submitted by the applicant. The approximate

location of the house on the site was indicated with a purple box. A blue

line indicated where the six-foot privacy fence would be located, and a

green line showed the proposed location of the four-foot-tall split rail

fence. A portion of the six-foot fence would extend past the front of the

house and would be set back about one foot from the west property line,

while the four-foot fence would be fully to the front of the house and set

back about 30 feet from the front property line.

Capka shared aerial images of the site. One included large mature trees

in the rear yard, as well as the approximate location of the pond and

creek. Another image showed the exact location of the pond and creek,

and another showed the location of the 100-year flood plane, which takes

up the majority of the backyard. Capka also shared a street view image

of the property, noting trees and foliage that would partially screen the

fence. The split-rail fence would be partially visible from the right-of-way,

but the majority of the privacy fence would not be visible. Capka then

shared images showing the two types of fences that would be installed.

The requested variance pertains to the Zoning Code section that states

that fences cannot extend past the front elevation of the principal structure

and privacy fences are prohibited in the front yard. It also states that

fences in the front yard must be decorative, open, and 42 inches tall or

less.

Capka shared the standard variance criteria that must be met for

approval. 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

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

Staff recommended approval of the variance as submitted.

Chair Pollyea opened public comment at 6:45 p.m.

Ben Workman, 266 Colony Court, addressed the Planning Commission.

Mr. Workman is the owner of Arrow Fence, the contractor carrying out the

project. Mr. Workman provided a correction to Ms. Capka’s report,

noting that the six-foot fence that runs on the west side property line does

not exceed the front of the house. He explained there was an error when

the project was submitted. The six-foot fence would not impede the front

yard. He added that the homeowner would consider having a 42-inch

fence; their primary goal was to enclose the space for their dog. What

was submitted was the owner’s preference, but it could be changed if

needed. He provided one additional correction to the application: the

split-rail fence was supposed to be a three-rail fence, not a four-rail

fence.

There being no other members of the public wishing to speak at the time,

Chair Pollyea closed public comment at 6:47 p.m. and opened the floor

for questions from the commission.

Mr. Suriano inquired about the plan for a dog enclosure, and whether that

would be in the four-foot fence or six-foot fence sections. Mr. Workman

explained there was not a split between the two types of fences, so there

is simply one large enclosure. The two types of fencing are proposed for

some added privacy. Mr. Suriano noted there was a space on the plan

that looked very tight and wondered whether it was accessible. Mr.

Workman explained the area in question was approximately a 7-foot

passageway.

Mr. Greenberg asked for clarification whether the privacy fence would

extend into the front yard. Mr. Workman confirmed it would not, and it

would extend no further than the front corner. Split rail will be in front of the

home. There would be two gates, one in the back corner, and one in the

front corner. Mr. Greenberg asked whether there were comments from

neighbors, to which Deputy Clerk McGuire replied she did not receive

any.

Mr. Tamarkin confirmed that there would be a transition from the solid

fence to the split rail fence around the corner of the house. He then

inquired about the split rail having a path through the trees in the front

yard. Mr. Workman explained that the trees were removed.

Ms. Pollyea asked what kind of material went in between the slats in the

three-rail fence. Mr. Workman stated there was a wire mesh material

between them.

Mr. Greenberg asked where the driveway to the home was. Mr. Workman

described the two driveway access points. He confirmed that an

emergency vehicle would be able to access the driveway if needed.

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

Approved.

Mr. Suriano stated he supported the variance due to limitations posed by the

floodplain and the reasons outlined by staff.

Mr. Tamarkin stated he would also be in support of the variance, adding that

the fence height is appropriate considering the rural-type setting of the

property.

Ms. Pollyea added her support as well, citing the hardship placed on the

homeowner.

The motion carried by the following vote:

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

1 - Shapaka

Yes:

Absent:

V-0002-2026

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

Residential: Development Standards of the Codified Ordinances of the

City of Gahanna; for property located at 52 Price Road; Parcel ID

025-000967; Current Zoning ER - Estate Residential; Barbara Rogers,

applicant.

City Planner Maddie Capka introduced the application; see attached

staff presentation. The property at 52 Price Road is just under five acres

and is zoned Estate Residential. Capka shared a site map; the property

is narrow and deep. The applicant requested approval of a variance to

have less frontage than required. Zoning Code states that the properties

zoned Estate Residential must have at least 150 feet of frontage along a

right-of-way. There is a proposed lot split application, after which each

parcel would be below the required 150 feet. The west parcel would have

approximately 120.9 feet, while the east parcel would have approximately

120.3 feet of frontage. After the lot split, each parcel would be around 2.4

acres. A subdivision without plat application has not yet been filed, but if

the variance is approved, that would be the applicant’s next step. Capka

explained that there was both a house and garage previously on the site,

and both were demolished in November of 2025.

Sharing a site plan submitted by the applicant, Capka pointed out that

the lot is proposed to be split almost exactly down the middle. If split,

each site will still exceed the required one acre.

The requested variance is for Section 1103.06(e) of the Zoning Code,

which states that all properties zoned Estate Residential must have at

least 150 feet of frontage. As previously noted, each proposed parcel will

have around 120 feet.

Capka then shared the standard variance criteria that must be met for the

variance to be approved:

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

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

Mr. Shapaka arrived at 6:54 p.m.

Staff recommended approval of the variance as submitted, stating it is

relatively minor in nature at a 30-foot deviation, and both parcels remain

more than double the minimum lot size for the zoning district. She stated

that the Planning Commission previously approved a frontage variance

for another Estate Residential property on Shull Road.

Chair Pollyea opened public comment at 6:56 p.m.

Barbara Rogers, 462 Hamilton Court, introduced herself as the applicant

and owner of the property. She said that although the house and garage

were demolished, there are two small outbuildings still existing on the

property. She stated she also learned there is well water and septic on

the property. She contacted the Franklin County Department of Health to

understand the process of sealing off the well and hauling away the

septic system.

There being no other members of the public wishing to speak at the time,

Chair Pollyea closed public comment at 6:57 p.m.

Mr. Shapaka asked if the site would be tied into the City of Gahanna

water and sanitary, which Ms. Rogers confirmed. Ms. Rogers noted there

is a sanitary sewer easement across the property. Due to the easement

and flood plain at the back of the property, the site could not be split

horizontally.

Mr. Mako confirmed with the administration that the Variance request is

specifically for road frontage, which Ms. Capka acknowledged. All other

requirements for the lot to be split are met. Mr. Mako directed remarks to

the applicant, stating that the access and maintenance agreements that

were established are very good to have. He asked whether there would

be one point of access to the properties, which Ms. Rogers confirmed

there would be a shared driveway.

Ms. Laser asked whether two driveways would be feasible, noting that in

a couple of decades, there could be new property owners. Ms. Rogers

cited the importance of the maintenance agreement, highlighting the

shared responsibility of maintaining the single driveway, which would stay

with the property.

Mr. Greenberg asked the administration if the lot split were to be

approved, if any other approvals would be required of Planning

Commission. Ms. Capka stated all other approvals would be the purview

of the city administration.

Ms. Pollyea provided comments to the applicant from her perspective as

a real estate attorney. She encouraged the applicant to hire a real estate

attorney to review the maintenance agreement, and also to have it filed

after the split occurs. Ms. Rogers noted that the City of Gahanna

requested the access and maintenance agreement during the

application review process but agreed that it should be re-signed and

filed after the lot split.

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

Approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

7 -

Yes:

Mako, Chair Pollyea, Vice Chair Suriano, Shapaka, Greenberg, Laser and

Tamarkin

UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE

NEW BUSINESS

Planning Commission Rules of Procedure - Proposed Draft 1.14.2026

RULES-0001-20

Chair Pollyea introduced the item and opened the floor for questions

from the Commission. Mr. Shapaka inquired about the changes in the

rules. Deputy Clerk McGuire explained that the rules were updated to

eliminate the stated start time of 7:00 p.m., so that the Commission had

flexibility to meet at the proposed 6:30 p.m. start time.

A motion was made by Greenberg, seconded by Shapaka, that the Rules of

Procedure be adopted as proposed. The motion carried by the following vote:

7 -

Yes:

Mako, Chair Pollyea, Vice Chair Suriano, Shapaka, Greenberg, Laser and

Tamarkin

OFFICIAL REPORTS

Director of Planning

Director Blackford expressed his appreciation to the Commission for

their modifications to meeting attendance. Director Blackford shared that

the new Gahanna Lincoln High School opened the prior week, adding

that the City of Gahanna Building team spent thousands of hours on the

project. He expressed his thanks to Senior Building Official Ken Fultz,

and Building Division members Ed Loper, Fredena Williams, and Mike

Frey. Director Blackford also remarked on activity happening on Mill

Street, where demolition has begun on the Creekside redevelopment

project. He added that Creekside, in addition to the recently-constructed

library, the high school, and the new Civic Center

Council Liaison

Chair Pollyea reported that City Council had their organizational meeting

and swearing in ceremony on January 2, 2026. Council selected Trenton

Weaver as Council President, with Jamille Jones serving as Vice

President.

Mayor

Mayor Jadwin echoed Director Blackford’s comments about the Building

Division team. She shared that the school district’s leadership expressed

their appreciation of the Building team for their role in opening the

building. She added that Public Safety and Engineering played critical

roles in the project as well. In reflecting on her own experience visiting the

building, Mayor Jadwin stated that she was overwhelmed by the

opportunities the building presents for students for generations to come.

She commended the community for understanding the importance of

investing in education. Mayor Jadwin then shared that the grand opening

of the new Civic Center would be held in the coming months. She

anticipated staff to begin moving in in the first quarter. The mayor also

recounted being present for the beginnings of demolition at Creekside,

and expressed excitement for the future of Creekside. Mayor Jadwin also

remarked on the adoption of Our Gahanna, the Strategic Plan and

Economic Development Strategy that was previously adopted in

November. The administration is shifting to the implementation aspect of

the plan and will continue to partner with Planning NEXT to work on

tracking metrics and reporting. She ended her comments by thanking the

Commission for their changes to the meeting schedule, which will make

a positive difference for staff, and thanked the Commission for their

expertise and commitment.

Chair

Chair Pollyea echoed sentiments about the new high school. She

expressed that as an alumnus, she appreciated the opportunity to tour

both the old and new buildings.

CORRESPONDENCE AND ACTIONS - NONE

POLL MEMBERS FOR COMMENT

Mr. Shapaka shared congratulations to the Commission Chair and Vice

Chair on their elections. Mr. Shapaka also remarked on the high school

construction, noting its impressiveness, adding that he also had the

opportunity to tour the one-room school for the first time.

Mr. Suriano also shared his thoughts on the new building, stating that his

three daughters will all have gone through Gahanna schools, with his

youngest starting at the new high school. He remarked that the new

school is an achievement. He felt it was a milestone for the community.

Ms. Laser said she has a high school senior and was also impressed by

and excited about the new building. She remarked that some seniors

may feel sadness about transitioning to the new building.

ADJOURNMENT OF REGULAR MEETING

There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting

was adjourned at 7:23 p.m.