Gahanna planning commission denies homeowner's request to excuse 2-foot garage setback violation

The Gahanna Planning Commission voted Thursday to deny a variance request that would have allowed a detached garage at 307 Rivers End Road to remain 3 feet from a south side property line, two feet inside the 5-foot side-yard setback required by the city code.

The denial follows testimony from the homeowner, Don Mack, and city planning staff who said the garage was built in a different location than the approved permit and foundation inspection showed. The motion to approve the variance failed on a roll call vote.

The variance application sought relief from Gahanna Codified Ordinances Chapter 1103.09(e), which requires accessory structures to be at least 5 feet from a side property line. Planning staff recommended disapproval, saying the originally approved permit showed the garage at the required 5-foot setback and that the site had room for the garage to meet code. The staff report noted that cost to move the foundation is not a factor in evaluating practical difficulty.

Mack, who said he purchased the 1960-built house last summer and undertook extensive renovations, told the commission he was unaware the foundation had been set at 3 feet instead of the permitted 5 feet. "I was not aware of the 5 foot setback," he said. Mack said he changed contractors during the work and that the contractor who placed the foundation is different from the first contractor he hired.

Commissioners questioned whether the size or placement of the structure could be altered to meet code. Mack said the garage is 30 by 30 (900 square feet) and that moving the entire foundation two feet would be time-consuming and, according to his contractor's estimate, could cost roughly $8,000 to $10,000; he also gave a broader estimate of about $60,000 for the full garage construction. The commission reiterated that construction cost and contractor error do not meet the variance standard for practical difficulty.

Several commissioners expressed concern about setting a precedent. "Given the size of the garage and the fact that we already have a really tight side yard setback of 5 feet...3 feet's even less, I don't think this is your responsibility to fix. I think it's your contractor's responsibility to fix, given that you had approved drawings," Commissioner Siriano said.

The commission considered a motion to approve the variance (moved by Commissioner Mako and seconded by Commissioner Shepaka). On roll call the motion failed (Yeas: Shepaka; Nays: Greenberg, Hicks, Mako, Polier, Siriano, Tamarkin). The application was therefore denied; the homeowner may pursue corrective construction or other civil remedies outside the planning variance process.

The commission record shows one adjacent neighbor, Caleb Redfern, informed staff he supported the variance. No other written neighbor support was recorded in the administrative record for the public meeting.

Next steps and context: staff noted the failed inspection occurred when a foundation inspector measured the garage footing and found it did not match the approved plans. The homeowner said the footer inspection had initially been approved by a city inspector but that a subsequent outside inspector flagged the location as too near the property line. The commission recommended the homeowner pursue legal or contractual remedies against contractors if appropriate.

No other actions were taken regarding this parcel at the meeting. The commission moved on to other agenda items following the vote.