200 South Hamilton Road

Gahanna, Ohio 43230

City of Gahanna

Meeting Minutes

Board of Zoning and Building Appeals

Lorne Eisen, Chair

Paul D. Bryson, Vice Chair

Ross Beckmann

Mike Burmeister

Obie Stillwell

Jeremy A. VanMeter, Clerk of Council

Tuesday, October 14, 2025

6:30 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

CALL TO ORDER: Pledge of Allegiance & Roll Call

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals met in Regular Session on

Tuesday, October 14, 2025, in Council Chambers. Chairman Lorne

Eisen called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Board Member Michael

Burmeister led members in the Pledge of Allegiance. The agenda was

published on October 10, 2025.

3 - Michael Burmeister, Lorne Eisen, and Paul Bryson

Present

2 - Ross Beckmann, and Obie Stillwell

Absent

ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA:

None.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

2025-0048

Board of Zoning and Building Appeals Minutes 1.14.2025

A motion was made by Burmeister, seconded by Bryson, that the Minutes be

Approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

3 - Burmeister, Eisen and Bryson

2 - Beckmann and Stillwell

Yes:

Absent:

ADMINISTERING THE OATH:

City Attorney Priya Tamilarasan administered the oath to all individuals

presenting testimony before the Board for the evening’s appeal hearing.

APPEALS - PUBLIC HEARINGS:

BZA-0002-2025

To consider an appeal of Planning Commission's denial of V-0019-2025,

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.

Chairman Eisen introduced Appeal No. BZA-0002-2025, which

concerned the Planning Commission’s denial of Variance V-0019-2025,

an application requesting relief from Section 1103.07(e), Large Lot

Residential, of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Gahanna. He

stated that the property at 400 Braemer Court, Parcel ID 025-011408,

carried R-1 Large Lot Residential zoning and that Corey Schoo served

as the applicant. Chairman Eisen asked the Clerk to confirm for the

record that the applicant had satisfied all requirements of Chapter 147 of

the Codified Ordinances regarding applications, paperwork, and fees.

The Clerk confirmed that the applicant had met all requirements.

Chairman Eisen thanked the Clerk and explained the hearing procedure

under Rules 6.4 and 6.5, including the allotted speaking times for the

appellant and appellee, as well as opportunities for board members to

pose questions throughout the hearing. He then invited the appellants to

the microphone.

Appellant Presentation

Mr. John Esterby stated that he owned the property and that his

contractor, Corey Schoo, appeared with him. He explained that they had

attended a variance meeting on November 7 regarding a height

variance. He stated that the minutes would show that the issue involved

six inches, as their structure measured 17 feet while the code allowed 15

feet. He stated that the head of the building committee told them during

that meeting that he could administratively approve a variance of 1.5 feet

or 10%. He stated that during the meeting, Mr. Schoo modified the

drawings by pulling the top roof back approximately eight inches, which

lowered the overall structure by six inches. He explained that they left the

meeting believing that, if they filed an appeal, the approval would occur

administratively.

Mr. Esterby continued and stated that they had already run six months

behind schedule. He stated that they decided to begin the project

because they believed the appeal would receive a “rubber stamp.” He

stated that they possessed stamped building permits and therefore built

the structure. He stated that they received no notification from the City,

even though documentation claimed that calls were made. He stated that

they completed a public records request that provided a document from

November 7, 2024, and another document dated January, 2025. He

stated that they submitted a second variance request after their initial

denial and that they had expected administrative approval. He stated that

they heard nothing until January 26, 2025, when the public record showed

that staff updated the variance to indicate the structure was out of

specification, based on a drive-by inspection that determined it was too

tall.

Mr. Schoo asked whether he could supplement Mr. Esterby’s comments,

and Chairman Eisen allowed him to continue. Mr. Schoo stated that they

would have submitted the design at 16.5 feet had they known it would

have been acceptable. He stated that all parties agreed to modify the

drawings, and he submitted revised plans immediately after the

November 6 Planning Commission meeting. He stated that he submitted

the revised application on November 7, completed the drawings the

same day, and submitted the full package on November 8. Mr. Schoo

stated that they built the structure and completed it on December 19. He

stated that he attempted to schedule inspections after receiving plan

approval, noting that different permit offices use different systems for

zoning and building stamps. He stated that he believed they had done

everything required, but no inspections occurred. He stated that the

property already had foundation work in place, so only framing and final

inspections remained. He stated that after calling in inspections with no

response, he eventually learned that Mr. Esterby received a code

violation notice on January 28, 2025. Mr. Schoo stated that he

resubmitted the Rev. 5 drawings on January 29, and staff approved them

again. He stated that further code violations followed on March 18 and

April 1 and that he repeatedly resubmitted the same drawings previously

approved during the zoning process. He stated that he felt confused and

shocked because he believed they followed instructions and acted within

the guidance provided. Mr. Schoo described his documentation, which

contained 220 line items. He stated that line item 114 represented the

first code violation and line item 118 documented his resubmission. He

stated that his correspondence showed a continuous cycle of violations

and resubmittals. He also stated that during the original meeting, an

architect suggested reducing the upper rafter overhang. He stated that he

modified the design in CAD by pulling back the upper overhang

approximately eight inches, reducing the height from the original 17 feet,

3/16 inches to approximately 16.5 feet.

Mr. Esterby stated that they never received communication that the plans

could not be approved and that he believed this lack of communication

influenced the second variance hearing.

Mr. Schoo added that the head of zoning told them during the meeting

that they could grant up to a 10% administrative variance and that this

statement led to a collaborative attempt among everyone present to

solve the issue. He stated that when he later received no responses from

the department, he visited the front desk. He reported that the staff

member told him that the rule had changed and that the head of zoning

“shouldn’t have said that.” She reportedly stated that her supervisor was

present during the meeting and that he still should not have made that

statement. Mr. Schoo stated that he found this surprising because he

believed the zoning representatives and board members told them they

were “good to go,” only to learn later that the information was incorrect.

Chairman Eisen asked Mr. Schoo about his understanding of the

inspection process and requested that he explain what occurred when he

attempted to call in inspections, come in, or otherwise make contact.

Mr. Schoo stated that he typically used an online portal for inspections

when available, noting that the Columbus and Delaware portals were

easy to use. He explained that he did not recall using a portal for this

project and had instead called the building department. He said he

identified himself as Corey from Cedar and Stone, provided the parcel

number and permit number, and requested framing and final inspections.

He reported that he called in the framing inspection once and then again,

and after that, he continued requesting “framing and final.” He said

nothing appeared in the portal to indicate the department had received

his requests, and he never received a return call. He described ongoing

silence from the department. He stated that he and another individual

on-site discussed the lack of response daily, and that the project took a

month to build, so it had not been a quick process.

Chairman Eisen noted that Mr. Schoo had indicated he came in once for

another matter when he was not receiving responses through the portal

or by phone. He asked whether Mr. Schoo made any attempt to come in

and speak to the building department directly to request a final

inspection.

Mr. Schoo replied that if he did, the record would show it. He stated that

he completed the project on December 19, which the documentation

identified as the completion date. He referenced line 113 for the

completion and asked about the start date.

Board Member Bryson stated that he saw a “shop to site” note at line

105 dated November 18, along with a “site one” entry, and asked if that

reflected the start date.

Mr. Schoo confirmed that the “site one” entry on November 18 marked

the start date and that the project took 30 days. He added that he had

submitted drawings because the structure had been pre-built at his shop

in July 2024, aside from the bottom of the posts. He stated that after

resubmitting the drawings and receiving stamped plans, he placed them

in plastic and posted them on-site with the green inspection card. He

explained that he would have waited until the frame was completed, likely

on day three or four, before calling in framing. He also noted that,

because his projects often required both framing and final inspections,

he typically tried to avoid unnecessary trips for the inspector by arranging

for a single visit at the end. He stated that he normally used online portals

because they were efficient and faster, and that the record should contain

these details.

Chairman Eisen said he had additional questions but would wait until

after hearing from Mr. Roth. He asked whether Board Members had

questions at that time.

Board Member Burmeister stated he would wait until after hearing from

the appellee. Board Member Bryson agreed, noting that some questions

might be answered during the remainder of the presentation.

Chairman Eisen asked Mr. Esterby if he had concluded his portion of the

presentation. Mr. Esterby stated that he had. Chairman Eisen thanked

him and invited Mr. Roth to proceed.

Appellee Presentation

Assistant City Attorney Matt Roth addressed the Board and clarified the

process that led the application to the BZBA. He stated that the Planning

Commission heard the application twice. He explained that in November

2024, the Planning Commission reviewed the project at a proposed

height of 17 feet. During that meeting, the appellants reported that Mr.

Blackford, Director of Planning, told them an administrative approval

could be granted if the height were reduced to 16½ feet. Attorney Roth

stated that the comment occurred in November 2024, shortly after the

City’s new code took effect in May 2024, which allowed administrative

approvals for de minimis variances up to 10%. He added that although

such administrative variances could apply to setbacks, they did not apply

to building heights. He confirmed that Mr. Blackford told the appellants

that an administrative approval might be possible, but he had been

mistaken. He also stated that no one told the appellants they did not need

a building permit. Attorney Roth explained that the appellants applied

through the portal for a building permit but never received one. He

clarified that the appellants had stamped plans, not a stamped permit.

He stated that the plans were stamped because the structure met

building code requirements, but the City did not issue a building permit

because the height required a variance. He reported that when the matter

returned to the Planning Commission in August, the Planning and Zoning

Offices stated they had attempted to contact the appellants and had not

received a response. Attorney Roth acknowledged the appellants’ claim

that they did not receive such contact. He noted that the City issued a

denial on November 6, and the appellants began construction on

November 18 without a permit. He stated that he found it difficult to

understand why they believed they could begin construction simply

because someone had stated in a meeting that an administrative

variance could be granted when they had never received such approval.

Attorney Roth summarized the Planning Commission’s concerns during

both hearings. He stated that the Commission found no circumstances

unique to the property that would warrant a variance. He explained that

variances typically relate to unique property conditions such as slopes or

floodplain issues and that this project involved a backyard pool cabana

without any unusual site constraints. He referenced the current code,

which requires that a variance be necessary for the economical use of

the property and that such use cannot be easily achieved by another

method. He stated that before construction, no economic hardship

existed because the structure had not yet been built. He noted that the

appellants now claimed it would be expensive to reduce the height, and

he recalled that Mr. Schoo said during the last Planning Commission

meeting that he would need to jack up the entire building to shorten it. He

then stated that the Planning Commission also considered the

surrounding neighborhood. He noted that no other accessory structures

in the area exceeded 15 feet and that approving this variance would

change the character of the vicinity. He concluded that the Planning

Commission acted properly when it denied the application.

Chairman Eisen thanked Attorney Roth and returned the floor to the

appellants for five minutes of final comment.

Appellant Rebuttal

Mr. Schoo stated that he worked with many permitting offices and that

each office managed its processes differently. He explained that when he

received the green building card and the plans in a packet, he printed

everything, placed the packet in plastic, and posted it on-site as he did

on all projects. He said he understood that portal verbiage varied

between jurisdictions and that, despite his experience, he had never

made a mistake like this. He stated that he likely assumed too much. He

explained that he asked at the meeting whether he needed to apply for

another variance or resubmit the drawings. He stated that City staff told

him to submit revised drawings and that the office would handle the

matter internally if he reduced the structure to the required height. He said

he believed he submitted the correct materials and that staff sent him a

permit packet. He stated that he posted the packet and built the structure

as he always did. He emphasized that he had no ill intent and no desire

to circumvent the process. Mr. Schoo stated that he could have lowered

the beam clearance by cutting the posts further if the City had informed

him that he still needed a variance. He explained that the structure was

large and could not be concealed, and he believed the issue could have

been avoided had the City provided clear feedback or updated

instructions if its position had changed. He stated that he believed he

followed the direction given and attempted to do the right thing. Mr.

Schoo also described the work required to reduce the height of the

structure. He stated that he would need to bring in a crane to relieve the

load, lift the structure, approximately 30,000 pounds, and cut several

inches off the bottom of the posts, because he could not reduce the 8x12

beam without compromising its engineering requirements. He stated that

the repair was possible but expensive and that he preferred not to

perform it unless necessary.

Chairman Eisen asked Mr. Esterby if he had anything to add. Mr. Esterby

stated that he had nothing further.

Appellee Rebuttal

Chairman Eisen asked Attorney Roth if he had any final comments.

Assistant City Attorney Roth stated that he had nothing further.

Board Questions and Deliberation

Chairman Eisen thanked the participants and opened the questioning

period. He recognized Board Member Burmeister.

Board Member Burmeister stated that he reviewed the appellants’

correspondence exhibit and thanked them for providing it. He noted that

the appellants identified November 8 as the date they resubmitted

drawings to zoning and that they listed November 18 as their start date

and December 19 as the completion date. He said he did not see any

notification confirming that they received an approval packet after

November 8. He asked when they actually received the packet and how

they obtained it if the building department or zoning had not issued an

approval. He asked by what method they received the packet.

Mr. Schoo stated that he believed he received the building plans

approval through the portal. He said he saw the approval repeated and

then noticed that the green building card appeared in the portal, which he

had not seen before. He explained that he interpreted the release of the

green card as an indication that they could proceed, because the card

served as the inspection card for the site. He stated that he mistakenly

believed the building plans approval and the green card together

constituted the complete packet, so he printed them and posted them

on-site.

Board Member Burmeister said he often worked with the building and

zoning departments and understood that the portals could be frustrating.

He stated that, in his experience, applicants usually received an email

notification when plans were approved, rather than discovering it only by

checking the portal. He asked whether Mr. Schoo received a formal

email stating that the plans had been approved.

Mr. Schoo stated that he received emails that contained links to the

portal, which was his typical indicator. He said the emails always stated

“plan approval,” and when he logged in and found the green card, he

assumed they had full approval. He acknowledged that he made the

wrong assumption.

Board Member Burmeister asked again whether he received a formal

notification from the portal or the City that the plans had been approved,

or whether he had simply checked the portal regularly.

Mr. Schoo stated that he did both. He referenced Column C of his exhibit,

which showed communication between him, Mr. Esterby, and the office.

He acknowledged that the amount of information was substantial.

Board Member Burmeister restated his question in short form: did Mr.

Schoo receive formal notification that the plans had been approved and

could be downloaded, or did he base his assumption solely on the

appearance of the green card?

Mr. Schoo reviewed item 101 and attempted to recall his process. He

said he usually received an email titled “plan approval” and then clicked

into the portal. He explained that he also saw a release of the green

building card, which he rarely received access to, and the combination of

those two items led him to believe they had approval. He added that he

began calling in inspections through the hotline, which he assumed would

alert the department if something was incorrect. He stated that he

believed he had followed the directions given at the earlier meeting and

thought the staff was simply busy.

Board Member Burmeister acknowledged his explanation and

apologized for extending the line of questioning. He asked whether,

during the zoning process, Mr. Schoo usually received separate emails

from the zoning department notifying him of approval to proceed or

notifying him of any required variance. He noted that the appellants

resubmitted drawings on November 8 and asked whether they received

any follow-up communication indicating zoning approval beyond the

green card.

Mr. Schoo stated that they did not. He said the system simply displayed

“building plans approved,” which he interpreted as a general approval.

He explained that he typically built detached accessory structures and

had followed his usual process. He stated that this was the first time he

had been significantly wrong. He recalled that in previous projects,

including the first one he completed in this jurisdiction, he received the

plans-approved email and assumed he could proceed. He said that

earlier projects included additional comments or messages afterward,

but he had still interpreted the initial approval notification as authorization

to begin. He stated that seeing the inspection card reinforced that belief.

He explained that he printed the drawings without reviewing them closely,

placed them in plastic, and posted them on-site. He ensured the plans

remained accessible every day, including during inclement weather.

Board Member Burmeister concluded his first set of questions and

turned the floor over to the other members.

Board Member Bryson stated that Mr. Burmeister had already

addressed several questions he intended to ask. He said he had a

question about a note in the record at line 45 that he did not understand

in light of the other information presented. He noted that the exhibit

showed a portal entry dated September 24, 2024, indicating “residential

building permit was issued.” He asked for clarification.

Mr. Schoo explained that the heading shown in the exhibit came directly

from an email sent through the Gahanna system and that it appeared to

be the first email he received in that sequence.

Board Member Bryson stated that the remainder of the entry appeared to

list reasons that a permit had not been issued. He said he saw the

statement “residential building permit was issued,” but also saw a

comment from Mike Frey requiring action due to zoning comments. He

said that, based on his understanding, this suggested the permit had not

actually been approved and that the subject line appeared misleading.

He asked whether he interpreted the record correctly or whether the

permit had in fact been approved but delayed due to a zoning issue. He

added that, unlike the other Board Members, he did not work in

construction and wanted to ensure he understood the process.

Mr. Schoo stated that the system produced two separate emails. He

explained that the first email displayed the typical heading that normally

indicated the project was approved to move forward. He said the second

email was a comment letter, which he described as common in

jurisdictions like Upper Arlington and Muirfield, where setbacks and lot

restrictions frequently prompted additional review. He stated that in this

case the comments related to setbacks, but noted that the property had a

previous variance granted during the pool project. He explained that they

gathered all necessary documents, addressed those issues, and moved

forward. He stated that a third email addressed the height issue, which

required a new variance because the earlier variance covered only the

other zoning matters. He referenced line 48 as an example of his

communication with staff, explaining that he included all correspondence

in the exhibit to provide a complete record. He then noted that line 49

reflected his review of the comments and line 50 reflected his updated

drawings. He added that he also communicated with the City to ensure

the previous variance was applied correctly so that the setbacks were

properly addressed and grandfathered.

Board Member Bryson stated that the explanation gave him a clearer

understanding. He said that no permit had been issued at that time

because zoning clearance remained outstanding, and zoning approvals

had to be completed before a building permit could be issued.

Mr. Schoo stated that this situation involved his first variance. He said

that in the past he had obtained variances only after construction when

the permitting office had initially approved a project and a separate issue

later arose. He explained that he had never been in the position of

seeking a variance before construction. He stated that he may have

assumed they were approved to proceed because he saw the

application listed as “building approved and pending zoning,” and

believed zoning was being addressed through the variance. He said he

viewed the packet as complete with boxes left to check. He stated that he

would be more diligent in the future.

Mr. Esterby asked Mr. Schoo whether the green card had been received

later and not at the time shown on line 45. Mr. Schoo asked whether the

inspection card was mentioned in the exhibit.

Board Member Burmeister stated that he did not see the green card in

the record and confirmed that its absence was part of the reason he had

raised the earlier questions.

Mr. Schoo stated that he initially believed the permit had been issued

because he received an email indicating that a residential permit had

been issued. He explained that when he submitted the Revision Five

drawings, he understood that he and the Board had reached agreement

and that the project was ready to proceed. He later noticed an inspection

card within the documents and acknowledged that it might have always

been there, but he only noticed it at that time. He recalled thinking,

“Finally, we got through. We’re good to go. We’ve got everything we

need. We can post on site and we can build this thing.”

Board Member Bryson concluded his questions and noted that Mr. Eisen

also had questions.

Chairman Eisen asked whether Mr. Schoo served as a design-builder

and whether someone in his firm was a licensed architect in Ohio who

could have sealed the plans.

Mr. Schoo explained that he handled all load calculations and much of the

timber framing. He stated that he employed two master carpenters and

used three different engineers depending on the project, particularly for

commercial work such as projects for Cameron Mitchell, including Cento

Italiano. He clarified that he could obtain stamped drawings but could not

stamp them himself.

Chairman Eisen confirmed that the drawings for this project were not

stamped by a licensed architect.

Mr. Schoo replied that they were not, and that in his experience

accessory, detached, or attached residential structures typically did not

require stamped drawings.

Chairman Eisen asked whether he had previously worked in the City of

Gahanna.

Mr. Schoo stated that he had and that his prior experiences had been

phenomenal.

Chairman Eisen then addressed the permit documents. He noted that

although the drawings might have included a plan-approval stamp, the

building department indicated that Mr. Schoo did not possess an actual

building permit document. He asked whether Mr. Schoo believed he

should have received a document labeled “building permit,” or whether

he had assumed something based on past practice.

Mr. Schoo stated that he had not received a document like that in seven

to nine years, since rule changes had gone into effect. He explained that

he rarely received paper documents anymore. Instead, he typically

received stamped, approved building drawings and an inspection card,

which he posted on site. He stated that no one had told him otherwise for

nine to eleven years. He recalled only one instance, while working in

Powell, when he received a letterhead document, and that occurred when

the jurisdiction printed it for him during the era of paper submissions.

Board Member Burmeister noted that he had printed the materials

himself and that the order might differ from what had been submitted. He

referenced the statement of variance and an attachment showing

drawings labeled with a plan-approval date of March 24, 2025.

Chairman Eisen invited Mr. Schoo to look at the document, and Mr.

VanMeter assisted with the in-Chambers display.

Mr. Schoo suggested that the document might show the earlier revision.

Board Member Burmeister stated that the label showed Revision One

with an issue date of June 27, 2024.

Mr. Schoo responded that Revision Five had been the stamped revision

on site, and that he believed he had supplied that version. He explained

that Revision One represented the initial submission after receiving

comments, while Revision Five reflected the final version.

Clerk VanMeter asked for clarification on the requested document to

display and projected the referenced materials.

Board Member Burmeister confirmed that the document still showed the

March 24, 2025 date and Revision One. He noted that he had been

reviewing page A.06, a side perspective view of the framing.

Mr. Schoo stated that the original framing dimension was likely 17 feet,

3/16 inches.

Board Member Burmeister replied that the drawing showed an overall

dimension of 16 feet.

Mr. Schoo acknowledged that the drawing showed that dimension.

Board Member Burmeister stated that he had noted that discrepancy, but

that the primary concern involved the stamp dates, which showed March

2025 instead of November 2024. He stated that they were trying to

understand the timeline, as much of their work involved sorting through

details that the applicant had lived with for a year, while the Board had

only researched them for a few weeks.

Mr. Esterby agreed and added that they were all trying to recall events

from a year earlier. Board Member Burmeister confirmed.

Chairman Eisen stated that he sought to understand a point referenced

in the video and minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. He noted

that staff had attempted to contact the appellant in January by phone, text,

and email to state that the structure could only reach a maximum height of

fifteen feet. He recalled that Mr. Schoo had previously stated he did not

receive text messages, did not see an email, and did not receive a

voicemail message. He acknowledged that the construction had already

been completed in December 2024 and asked Mr. Schoo to explain

what happened.

Mr. Schoo stated that when staff raised that issue, he told them that he

had received nothing. He explained that he asked staff for documentation

and that they told him to request their records, which would prove the

communications. He said that the records request produced no evidence

that anyone had contacted him. He stated that he had expected at some

point to receive communication about a framing final inspection and

assumed staff had been busy. He said he felt confident they had not

received any of the attempted communications and expressed surprise

that staff claimed they had made multiple attempts without producing

evidence.

Chairman Eisen stated that he could not resolve the discrepancy and

could only refer to what had been presented at the prior meeting by the

appellee and the appellant.

Mr. Schoo stated that he had a PDF of the green building card, which he

opened on October 3, 2024. He noted the created, modified, and last

opened dates in case they held relevance.

Board Member Burmeister asked whether the appellant had designed

the structure knowing from the beginning that it was not compliant.

Mr. Schoo stated that he had no idea and that he simply designed the

structure. Mr. Esterby agreed. Mr. Schoo stated that he expected the

design to be approved.

Board Member Burmeister asked whether they had performed due

diligence on local codes or ordinances before designing the structure.

Mr. Schoo stated that he had performed due diligence on past projects,

primarily regarding lot coverage, but had not encountered height issues

before. He said he worked on a current project in Muirfield at eighteen

feet and approached it differently by conducting pre-planning with zoning

before submitting anything. He explained that he had taken this approach

to streamline the process and avoid similar issues.

Board Member Burmeister noted that the structure began at seventeen

feet and that correspondence later indicated it would not be compliant.

He asked whether the appellant would have simply made the structure

fifteen feet tall if the city had not offered the possibility of a ten-percent

deviation.

Mr. Schoo stated that he would have determined what adjustments were

possible at that point. He explained that he typically designed structures

with proportional aesthetic considerations and then adjusted them if

required. He stated that he had since changed his process to avoid

wasted time by contacting offices earlier and confirming rule sets in

advance.

Mr. Esterby stated that although the height variance was no longer under

consideration, he wanted to explain the original intent. He said the

structure's height related to the entrance of the pool, where his daughters

and girlfriend liked to sunbathe. He stated that they insisted on

maintaining sun exposure in that area, which influenced the design

height. He said they could have explored options such as lowering the

roof or pulling back rafters if they had been told the limit was fifteen feet,

and if necessary, they would have lowered the structure.

Mr. Schoo stated that he wanted to clarify that point because Mr. Esterby

had repeated it in every meeting. He explained that the structure had

been pre-cut, and the posts were already fabricated at their original

lengths. He noted that he could have shortened the posts to reach fifteen

feet. He described discussions with the architect about preserving the

beam clearance and stated that he determined through CAD work that

he could adjust the rafter placement to maintain the desired clearance

while satisfying the design goal. He stated that if he had received any

communication before the start date, he would have shortened the posts

accordingly.

Chairman Eisen stated that he understood the aesthetic intent, but as an

architect, he emphasized that designers must first review local zoning

and building codes, including height, setbacks, and footing requirements.

He said that failure to research local code contributed to the current

situation and asked why reviewing building code had not been

considered a necessary step.

Mr. Schoo stated that he understood the common denominators among

permitting offices and learned which jurisdictions had specific

restrictions. He noted that he previously built a tall structure in west

Gahanna without receiving comments about height or variances. He

stated that most of his structures were not tall and were often built over

existing hardscaping, which limited the need to address lot coverage or

height issues. He explained that only larger and more complex structures

required additional research, and he had since learned more about

height limits and lot-coverage requirements. He stated that he now

approached projects fully prepared to avoid repeating this situation.

Chairman Eisen stated that the answer appeared to be that the appellant

had not researched the code for this project but would do so for future

work. He asked if there were further questions.

Board Member Bryson stated that he had no further questions.

Board Member Burmeister asked whether the appellant had researched

any alternative approaches to modifying the structure beyond lifting it with

a crane and cutting it down.

Mr. Schoo stated that his only alternative involved using house jacks. He

explained that he would build a temporary stud-frame structure to relieve

pressure by an eighth of an inch and then cut the nails at the sills with

chainsaws or track saws. He noted that the structure included a

stud-frame sill plate wall assembly in the back room between the posts

and beams. He said that if the structure were solely post-based, it would

be less difficult. He stated that he could support the structure, cut it, and

lower it, and that he would bring a crane on site for additional safety. He

added that he had experience removing large items from restaurants with

crane assistance, although he did not want to take that approach. He

said he still had a few options.

Mr. Esterby commented that he and his neighbor worked with such

equipment almost every day.

Board Member Burmeister clarified that he sought alternative,

out-of-the-box solutions that might bring the structure into code

compliance without major reconstruction. He referenced the Revision

One drawings showing the side elevation and asked staff to display page

A.006. He noted that the earlier version showed sixteen feet, the structure

began at seventeen feet, and it now measured sixteen and one-half feet.

Mr. Schoo stated that Revision One originally showed seventeen feet,

three-sixteenths of an inch.

Mr. Esterby said the drawing displayed did not reflect the correct

clearance.

Mr. Schoo acknowledged the discrepancy and attempted to locate the

correct version.

Board Member Burmeister asked whether the rafter tail above the large

beam near the peak could be modified to run flat and potentially bring the

structure below fifteen feet while maintaining nine feet of clearance below

the beam.

Mr. Schoo stated that he was reviewing Revision Five.

Board Member Burmeister noted that such an approach would retain the

majority of the structure while only modifying the tails.

Mr. Esterby stated that the top of the beam measured approximately

fifteen feet, three inches.

Mr. Schoo confirmed that the top of the beam measured fifteen feet,

three and nine-sixteenths inches.

Mr. Esterby asked whether the beam could be dropped and the beam on

the smaller roof eliminated to replace it.

Mr. Schoo explained that such a change would alter all bird’s-mouth

notch angles. He said that he could jack up the roof, remove the beam,

and bevel-cut it, but noted that the structure already measured sixteen

and one-half feet at its highest point.

Board Member Burmeister asked for confirmation of the height at the

highest element.

Mr. Schoo confirmed the height and stated that the architect had

proposed cutting the rafters back. He explained that staff had asked

them to lower the structure, but Mr. Esterby did not want to do so. He said

he had demonstrated options in CAD and later provided renderings for

approval. He emphasized that they could have lowered the structure but

instead removed rafter length to reduce the height.

Mr. Esterby stated that although the height was the height, staff had noted

that only five percent of the structure exceeded fifteen feet.

Board Member Burmeister referenced that percentage and reiterated

that he was exploring alternative ideas the appellant might not have

considered to achieve full compliance.

Mr. Schoo explained that their efforts focused on reaching sixteen and

one-half feet because they had been told that sixteen and a half feet was

acceptable.

Board Member Burmeister stated that he understood but noted that

zoning minutes from August 13 indicated that Planner Maddie Capka

had explained that the proposed seventeen-foot height exceeded code

by two feet. He stated that Capka had reported that staff incorrectly

stated that sixteen and one-half feet could be administratively approved.

He noted that Capka explained this could only occur under a de minimis

variance, which did not apply. He said the Board sought compliance at

fifteen feet rather than focusing on sixteen and one-half.

Mr. Esterby stated that they had never received notification that the

earlier interpretation was incorrect.

Mr. Schoo stated that zoning staff had agreed to approve sixteen and

one-half feet and had advised him to resubmit the drawings without a

variance. He said he resubmitted Revision Five in the portal for

administrative approval. He stated that he did not understand why full

compliance at fifteen feet was now required when staff had initially stated

that sixteen and one-half feet would be approved.

Board Member Burmeister stated that they had already explored that

issue in detail.

Chairman Eisen stated that the Planning Commission meeting notes

indicated that the ten-percent deviation could not apply to structure or

building height. He acknowledged the resulting confusion.

Mr. Esterby asked why the variance had not been updated the next day.

Mr. Schoo stated that no one informed him of any change and that he

later learned details from the secretary. He stated that everyone in

zoning, including the board representative, had told him that the

sixteen-and-a-half-foot height was the direction they were taking.

Board Member Bryson stated that it appeared they had been told that

plans submitted at sixteen and one-half feet could be approved through

the in-house review process. He asked if that understanding was correct.

Mr. Esterby stated that the meeting itself reflected that.

Board Member Bryson then asked whether they ever received formal

notification that the height had been approved.

Mr. Schoo stated that he received stamped drawings and believed

Board Members did not have the stamped Revision Five drawings he

submitted. He stated that he had printed those drawings and placed

them on site and believed that Revision Five was the final agreed-upon

document.

Chairman Eisen stated that the Board did not have that document.

Board Member Burmeister then directed questions to the appellee. He

stated that the appellant had said they requested records but had not

received anything showing that staff attempted to contact them beyond

the original meeting minutes from the first variance hearing. He asked

whether the appellee had documentation verifying that staff reached out

prior to issuing the violation notice.

Assistant City Attorney Roth stated that he had not seen the

communications staff claimed to have sent. He explained that staff stated

at the last Planning Commission meeting that they checked the provided

West Jefferson address and used phone and email. He stated that he

had not requested those communications and did not know whether they

existed. He noted that the appellant said they requested them and

received none. He stated that he relied on the Planning Commission

record, which stated that staff attempted multiple contacts and received

no response.

Board Member Burmeister stated that he sought to understand the

process. He noted that the appellant believed they had received verbal

approval at the zoning meeting and proceeded under the impression that

the variance had been granted. He stated that the appellant never

received direction to the contrary.

Assistant City Attorney Roth stated that the appellant took comments

made during the Planning Commission meeting, possibly including

hallway conversations, as approval. He stated that nothing was approved

until the building permit was issued. He explained that plan approval

differed from a building permit and involved engineering, fire, and several

other reviews. He emphasized that the building permit also considered

zoning requirements and variance approvals.

Chairman Eisen noted that Mr. Blackford explained this distinction at the

last meeting to ensure the Planning Commission understood the

difference between plan approval and a building permit.

Assistant City Attorney Roth confirmed that point.

Chairman Eisen stated that the opinion remained that no building permit

had been formally issued.

City Attorney Roth confirmed that conclusion.

Mr. Schoo asked who Mr. Blackford was and whether he served as the

office representative.

City Attorney Roth explained that Mr. Blackford was the Director of

Planning, though his title may have changed.

Mr. Schoo stated that Mr. Blackford had not been present at the last

meeting.

Assistant City Attorney Roth confirmed that he was not present at that

meeting.

Mr. Schoo stated that this caused confusion.

Assistant City Attorney Roth clarified that he referred to the 2024

meeting.

Mr. Schoo confirmed that and acknowledged the timeline.

Chairman Eisen stated that his recollection from the August meeting

video showed both Maddie Capka and Michael Blackford present.

Assistant City Attorney Roth stated that he did not recall Mr. Blackford’s

presence, although Ms. Capka was present.

Board Member Burmeister noted that Mr. Blackford was not listed as

present.

Chairman Eisen reviewed the August 13 Planning Commission meeting

minutes. He read a portion stating that Mr. Schoo said he had stamped

building plans on site, that a commissioner asked whether such plans

constituted permits, and that Director Blackford stated they were

separate items. He noted that Director Blackford explained the

difference between plan approval and a building permit and reiterated

staff’s attempts to contact the applicant. He stated that, regardless of Mr.

Blackford’s presence, the minutes supported the appellee’s statement

about the distinction between plan approval and permit issuance. He

stated that he did not agree that a building permit had been issued.

Mr. Schoo asked whether this discussion pertained to the second

variance hearing about the code violation.

Board Member Bryson explained that the variance was applied for after

the code violation, but the variance hearing itself concerned the request

to eliminate the existence of the violation.

Mr. Schoo acknowledged that.

Board Member Bryson stated that the text referenced was from that

meeting and might indicate that someone mistakenly identified Ms.

Capka as Director Blackford or vice-versa.

Chairman Eisen stated that both individuals sat together during that

meeting.

Assistant City Attorney Roth stated that he had not reviewed the video

but explained that Mr. Blackford sometimes sat at the table or in the front

row. He stated that Ms. Capka took the lead on the presentation.

Chairman Eisen confirmed that she led the presentation that evening.

Mr. Schoo stated that he remembered Mr. Blackford not being present

during roll call at that meeting. He stated that he had expected him to

attend because he participated in earlier discussions and had expressed

support. He stated that he was disappointed that Mr. Blackford did not

attend.

Board Member Bryson explained that roll call would have included only

Planning Commission members.

Mr. Schoo acknowledged that he may have misunderstood but

maintained that he remembered Mr. Blackford not being present and felt

disappointed because he believed Mr. Blackford supported the initial

direction.

Chairman Eisen acknowledged his comment and asked whether Board

Members had additional questions. Board Member Burmeister stated

that he had none. Board Member Bryson stated that he had none.

Chairman Eisen stated that the next step in the process involved

explaining the Board’s available actions. He stated that under Section

12.22 of the Rules of Procedure, the Board of Zoning Appeals could: (1)

find in favor of the appellant, (2) find in favor of the appellee and amend

the modification, or (3) remand instructions to the applicable city official,

employee, or body for further consideration or action. He explained that

the motion would be phrased in positive form, with members free to vote

either way. He stated that after a motion and a second, Board Members

would have the opportunity to offer final thoughts prior to Mr. VanMeter

conducting a roll call vote. He then asked for a motion related to the

appeal of Planning Commission’s denial of V-0019-2025.

Board Member Bryson moved to find in favor of the appellee.

Board Member Burmeister asked for confirmation that this meant a vote

in favor of the appellee.

Board Member Bryson stated that the motion affirmed the denial.

Chairman Eisen asked for clarification to ensure the motion allowed

members to vote as they wished. He stated that members could vote

either way regardless of who made or seconded the motion.

City Attorney Tamilarasan confirmed this and explained that finding in

favor of the appellee supported the City and upheld the Planning

Commission’s denial. She reminded the Board that the question before

the BZBA was whether the appellant proved by a preponderance of the

evidence that the Planning Commission erred in weighing the statutory

variance factors. She noted that although much discussion focused on

how the parties arrived at this point, the Board’s task was to determine

whether the Planning Commission appropriately weighed those factors in

denying the variance. She stated that she could review the statutory

factors if helpful.

Chairman Eisen asked whether granting the variance would supersede

the building department’s position that a permit could not be issued

because the structure violated code.

City Attorney Tamilarasan explained that compliance and the code

violation for building without a permit were separate issues. She stated

that the Board’s task was solely to determine whether the structure

should be allowed to exist as built at sixteen and one-half feet. She stated

that if the variance were granted, it would allow issuance of the building

permit even after the fact. She stated that any code violation issues

would be addressed separately in Mayor’s Court. She emphasized that

the variance decision focused only on whether the structure could exist

outside the code.

Chairman Eisen stated that he also saw in the prior meeting presentation

that Section 1117.02 listed eight requirements relevant to issuing a

variance, which the Board could consider.

City Attorney Tamilarasan confirmed this and stated that Section A

through H contained the required findings. She stated that if the Board

believed these factors were present and that the Planning Commission

did not give them sufficient weight, it could find that the Commission

erred by a preponderance of the evidence.

Mr. Esterby asked whether “de minimis” was one of the factors.

City Attorney Tamilarasan stated that it was not because that section

addressed de minimis variances, which did not apply to building height.

She then reviewed the eight variance factors at the Board’s request, and

Clerk VanMeter displayed the relevant code section on the screen. She

explained each factor, identified as A through H.

Chairman Eisen asked whether all eight factors needed to be met to

grant a variance.

City Attorney Tamilarasan confirmed that all eight were required.

Mr. Esterby asked why de minimis could not apply when they had been

told it would.

City Attorney Tamilarasan stated that staff mistakenly told them a de

minimis variance could apply to building height when the code expressly

stated otherwise. She stated that this incorrect information could be

considered by the Board as context when weighing the factors.

Chairman Eisen asked whether any further questions remained. He

thanked the city attorney for the clarification and asked Board Members

whether they had questions regarding the eight criteria or anything else

discussed.

Board Member Burmeister stated that he had no further questions.

Board Member Bryson stated that he appreciated the clarification.

Chairman Eisen acknowledged the strong language in the criteria and

noted that a motion was on the floor.

Board Member Burmeister seconded the motion in favor of the appellee.

Chairman Eisen asked whether there was any discussion prior to Mr.

VanMeter conducting the roll call. He stated that comments would

proceed in the opposite direction.

Board Member Bryson stated that although many topics were discussed,

the central question was whether the Planning Commission erred in not

granting the variance, based on the eight required factors. He stated that

several factors appeared favorable to the appellant, such as not

interrupting city services, not creating greater environmental impact, and

representing minimal variance from code. He stated that the Planning

Commission focused most heavily on whether the variance substantially

differed from the land-use plan and whether it was necessary for the

economical use of the parcel. He stated that he did not believe those

factors were met and concluded that the Planning Commission made an

appropriate decision in denying the variance.

Chairman Eisen asked Board Member Burmeister for his thoughts.

Board Member Burmeister stated that he felt for the appellant regarding

the process and hoped it did not damage their willingness to work in

Gahanna. He stated that he agreed that the original variance request was

properly upheld by the City, particularly regarding Item H, which

addressed whether a practical difficulty could be remedied through

another method. He stated that regardless of any erroneous direction the

appellant may have received, the issue could have been corrected at the

time. He stated that the Board was obligated to follow the applicable

statutes and uphold the City’s process.

Chairman Eisen stated that his thoughts aligned with those of the other

board members. He acknowledged confusion in November but reiterated

that building code review should have occurred before design began. He

stated that if the appellant had followed that step, the variance process

likely would not have been necessary. He noted that the appellant

acknowledged this and stated they would follow that procedure in the

future.

Mr. Schoo asked whether he could add something.

Chairman Eisen stated that he could not.

Mr. Schoo proceeded to state he had undergone medical treatment for

two years and that the treatment caused brain fog. He stated that

although he relied heavily on his notes, it was possible he missed

something during the process.

Chairman Eisen expressed sympathy but stated that the hearing had

progressed to a point where additional comments were not part of the

record, although they were captured by the recording. He stated that he

continued to have difficulty reconciling whether emails or texts had

actually been sent, but that issue did not affect his overall conclusions. He

stated that beginning construction without a permit was inexcusable and

that proper permitting would have prevented the situation entirely. He

stated that he did not believe all eight variance criteria were met. He

stated that Board Member Bryson’s comments supported this conclusion

and that he would vote in favor of the appellee.

Chairman Eisen asked for any remaining comments. Both Board

Members stated they had already spoken.

He asked whether the motion needed to be reread.

Mr. VanMeter stated that the motion was to find in favor of the appellee.

Chairman Eisen directed the roll call.

A motion was made by Bryson, seconded by Burmeister, that the Appeal

BZA-0002-2025 be Found in Favor of Appellee, affirming the denial of

V-0019-2025. The motion carried by the following vote:

3 - Burmeister, Eisen and Bryson

2 - Beckmann and Stillwell

Yes:

Absent:

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

Chairman Eisen stated that there was no unfinished business.

NEW BUSINESS:

Chairman Eisen stated there was no new business.

POLL MEMBERS FOR COMMENT:

Chairman Eisen asked whether his fellow board members had any

additional comments.

Board Member Bryson stated that they might need to address a

member’s repeated absences and suggested checking whether any

attendance-related action was required.

Mr. Schoo asked whether he could comment and stated that during the

second variance hearing, a member present at that meeting, who had not

attended the first hearing, stated that he would have approved the

request had he been present earlier. He stated that he believed this,

along with Mr. Blackford’s absence, might have extended the process.

Board Member Bryson acknowledged that the comment appeared in the

Planning Commission meeting minutes.

Mr. Schoo asked whether he should stop speaking if he was not

permitted to continue.

Chairman Eisen stated that at that point in the meeting, the Board could

not take additional comments.

ADJOURNMENT:

With no further business before the Board, Chairman Eisen adjourned

the meeting at 8:02 p.m.