Gahanna zoning board affirms denial of variance for 400 Braemar Court pool structure

The City of Gahanna Board of Zoning and Building Appeals on Oct. 14 upheld the Planning Commission's denial of a variance for an accessory pool structure at 400 Braemar Court, affirming the commission's decision by roll call after hearing testimony from the homeowner and the city's representative.

The vote affirmed the Planning Commission's denial of variance V-0019-2025 for the property at 400 Braemar Court (Parcel ID 025-011408). The board heard that the codified ordinance limits accessory structures to 15 feet in height and that the structure at issue was built to roughly 16.5 feet after an earlier design at about 17 feet. The applicant, homeowner John Esterby, and his contractor, Corey Shue of Cedar and Stone, sought relief after the Planning Commission denied the requested variance.

The case centered on whether the applicant had proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Planning Commission erred in weighing statutory variance criteria. City attorney Mister Roth told the board: "I believe the planning commission acted properly in denying this," arguing the commission correctly found no special circumstances on the lot to justify a height variance. Roth also explained the legal standard: the board must determine whether the Planning Commission appropriately applied the ordinance factors for granting a variance.

Appellant's account and timeline John Esterby said he and contractor Corey Shue attended a Planning Commission meeting in November 2024 and were told — he said by the head of zoning — that an administrative approval might be available if the structure were reduced to about 16.5 feet. Esterby said he resubmitted revised drawings on Nov. 8, 2024, posted stamped plans on site and began construction Nov. 18, 2024; he said construction finished in December. Esterby said he attempted to schedule inspections by phone and through the portal but received no clear response, and that he later received a code violation notice on Jan. 28, 2025.

Esterby told the board he believed staff guidance and the presence of stamped plans on site justified proceeding. He described attempts to reduce the height and told the board that correcting the built structure now would be costly: "I'm gonna have to get a crane out there ... I have to actually pull like, lift the entire thing, and I don't even know what it is, probably 30,000," he said, describing the need to raise and re-cut structural members to lower the finished height.

City and Planning Commission position City staff and Planning Commission counsel told the board the record shows plan approval for building-code compliance is distinct from issuance of a building permit and that no building permit was issued for the structure because a variance was required for height. Mister Roth and planning staff argued the Planning Commission reasonably found the lot did not present unique circumstances that would justify a variance. Roth noted that the current code lists factors (enumerated in Section 1117.02) — including whether the variance would change the character of the neighborhood or be required for the economical use of the property — and that staff concluded those factors did not favor a variance here.

Planning Commission materials and testimony also noted that the code's "de minimis" administrative variance process (a 10% allowance) does not apply to building heights. That point, staff said, undercut the applicants' argument that an in-house administrative approval could have been granted for a 16.5-foot height.

Board discussion and decision Board members discussed the statute's eight variance factors, focusing on whether the record demonstrated a special circumstance or practical difficulty that could not be remedied by another method. Several members said they were sympathetic to the appellant's claim of confusing staff guidance but nevertheless found the Planning Commission had not erred in weighing the ordinance criteria.

A motion to "find in favor of the appellee" — effectively affirming the Planning Commission denial — was made, seconded and passed by roll call. The roll call recorded the following votes: Bryson — yes; Burmeister — yes; Isom — yes. The chair announced, "The motion passes."

What the decision means By affirming the Planning Commission, the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals denied the requested variance and left in place the code requirement that accessory structures not exceed 15 feet in height absent an approved variance. City counsel explained that the variance decision is separate from potential code-enforcement consequences for building without a permit; any fines or enforcement actions related to the construction occurring before permit issuance would be handled through the city's enforcement process (for example, mayor's court), independent of the variance ruling.

Next steps noted in the hearing The hearing record documents the applicant's resubmissions, staff review, and the Planning Commission's two hearings (November 2024 and a later August/January sequence reflected in the record). Appellant-supplied exhibits and the administrative record will remain part of enforcement or any further appeals. The board did not remand the matter to staff for additional action.

The hearing lasted under an hour and was the only substantive agenda item; two regular board members were absent at the start of the meeting.