City of Gahanna Board of Zoning and Building Appeals Meeting Summary – October 24, 2025

The City of Gahanna (Ohio) Board of Zoning and Building Appeals (BZBA) held a regular meeting and public hearing on October 24, 2025, per the event date provided for this summary. (Note: The agenda, minutes, and transcript identify the meeting as Tuesday, October 14, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers.) Three of five board members were present: Chairman Lorne Eisen, Vice Chair Paul D. Bryson, and Member Michael Burmeister; Ross Beckmann and Obie Stillwell were absent. The sole substantive item was Appeal BZA-0002-2025, in which the Board voted 3-0 to find in favor of the appellee (the City), affirming the Planning Commission's denial of Variance V-0019-2025 for a pool cabana at 400 Braemer Court.

Call to Order, Consent Calendar, and Administrative Items

• Chairman Eisen called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.; Burmeister led the Pledge of Allegiance. The agenda was published October 10, 2025.
• No additions or corrections to the agenda.
• Minutes of the January 14, 2025 meeting (2025-0048) were approved by a 3-0 vote (Burmeister, Eisen, Bryson yes; Beckmann and Stillwell absent).
• City Attorney Priya Tamilarasan administered the oath to all individuals presenting testimony.

Appeal BZA-0002-2025 – Public Hearing

• The appeal challenged the Planning Commission's denial of Variance V-0019-2025, an application to vary Section 1103.07(e) (Large Lot Residential) for a backyard pool cabana at 400 Braemer Court (Parcel ID 025-011408; R-1 zoning). The structure was built at approximately 17 feet 3/16 inches, exceeding the 15-foot code maximum, and was later modified in design to approximately 16.5 feet. Clerk VanMeter confirmed the applicant satisfied all Chapter 147 application, paperwork, and fee requirements.

Appellant presentation (Corey Schoo, contractor, and John Esterby, property owner):

• Esterby stated that at a November 7, 2024 variance meeting, the head of the building committee told them he could administratively approve a 1.5-foot (10%) deviation. He said the drawings were revised by pulling the top roof back about eight inches, lowering the structure by six inches to about 16.5 feet, and they left believing the appeal would be "rubber stamped."
• Esterby said they had stamped building permits/plans, started the project, never received the City's claimed calls, and did not hear anything until public records showed a January 2025 update and a drive-by inspection determining the structure was out of specification. He said the lack of communication influenced the second variance hearing.
• Schoo said the revised application was submitted November 7-8, 2024, the structure was completed December 19, 2024 (a 30-day build beginning November 18), and he repeatedly called in framing and final inspections without response. He said he received code violations on January 28, March 18, and April 1, 2025, and resubmitted the same previously approved Rev 5 drawings each time.
• Schoo presented a 220-line-item correspondence log (line 114: first code violation; line 118: his resubmission) and stated he had no ill intent and believed he followed the guidance provided. He said reducing the structure to 15 feet would require a crane to lift the approximately 30,000-pound structure and cut the posts, which was possible but expensive.
• Schoo later stated he had undergone two years of cancer treatment (melanoma) that caused "brain fog," which he tried to offset with detailed notes.

Appellee presentation (Assistant City Attorney Matt Roth):

• Roth said the Planning Commission heard the application twice (November 2024 and August 13, 2025). He stated that Director of Planning Michael Blackford had wrongly told the appellants that a 10% de minimis administrative variance could apply to the building height, but such administrative variances do not apply to building heights.
• Roth clarified that the appellants had stamped plans (plan approval) but never received a building permit; the permit was not issued because the height required a variance. He said the denial was issued November 6, 2024, and construction began November 18, 2024, without a permit.
• Roth argued the Planning Commission properly found no unique property conditions warranting a variance, no pre-construction economic hardship, and no other accessory structures in the vicinity exceeding 15 feet; he said granting the variance would change the character of the area.

Board questions and discussion:

• Burmeister asked when and how the appellant received an approval packet and whether formal approval notification was received. Schoo said he relied on a "plan approval" email and the appearance of the green building card in the portal, an assumption he acknowledged was wrong.
• Bryson noted a September 24, 2024 portal entry headlined "residential building permit was issued" but containing zoning comments requiring action (from Mike Frey), indicating a permit had not actually been issued.
• Eisen noted the drawings were not stamped by a licensed architect; Schoo said residential accessory structures typically did not require stamped drawings in his experience.
• Eisen and Burmeister pressed on whether the appellants researched local code before designing; Schoo acknowledged he had not researched height limits for this project but said he now conducts pre-planning with zoning offices (citing an 18-foot project in Muirfield).

Statutory criteria review (City Attorney Tamilarasan):

• Tamilarasan explained that the question before the Board was whether the appellant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Planning Commission erred in weighing the eight variance factors in Section 1117.02(D)(4)(A)-(H), all of which must be met. She said "de minimis" is not one of the factors and does not apply to building heights, though the staff's mistaken advice could be considered as context.
• The factors address: changes to neighborhood character; damage to adjoining properties; governmental services; environmental impacts; necessity for economical use not achievable by another method; land-use plan objectives; whether the variance is the minimum necessary; and whether the practical difficulty could be eliminated by another method. She noted that granting the variance would allow after-the-fact permit issuance, while the building-without-a-permit violation would be handled separately in Mayor's Court.

Key Outcomes

• Board Member Bryson moved, and Board Member Burmeister seconded, to find in favor of the appellee, affirming the Planning Commission's denial of V-0019-2025. The motion passed 3-0 (Burmeister, Eisen, and Bryson yes; Beckmann and Stillwell absent).
• Bryson said several factors arguably favored the appellant, but the key factors—whether the variance was consistent with the land-use plan and necessary for the economical use of the property—were not met, so the Planning Commission did not err.
• Burmeister said he felt for the appellants regarding the process but agreed the denial was properly upheld, citing factor H (the practical difficulty could have been remedied another way) and the Board's obligation to follow the statutes.
• Eisen said confusion in November was understandable, but building code review should have preceded design, beginning construction without a permit was "inexcusable," and all eight criteria were not met.
• No unfinished business or new business was reported. Bryson suggested (for off-record follow-up) checking whether action was required regarding a board member's repeated absences.
• Chairman Eisen adjourned the meeting at 8:02 p.m.