Neighbors block frontage variance for 360 Carpenter Road after concerns about access and privacy

The Gahanna Planning Commission denied a variance request for 360 Carpenter Road on March 11, voting down V-00005-2026 after a split discussion and a roll-call vote.

Staff told the commission the property is an existing flag lot zoned R1 (large-lot residential) and that a proposed lot split would create two parcels — roughly 1.7 acres to the north and 0.5 acres to the south — with the smaller new parcel having no frontage on a public right-of-way. The zoning code requires a minimum 100-foot frontage; staff said the applicant submitted a shared-access agreement for use of the existing driveway and recommended approval of the variance because the parcels would meet minimum lot-size requirements and engineering had no objection to the shared-access arrangement.

“The shared driveway provides the only practical access solution for the proposed home and minimizes additional curb cuts,” the applicant’s representative, Martha Hunley, told the commission. Hunley said the proposed split would allow reasonable use of the property while maintaining setbacks and neighborhood character.

Several adjacent homeowners opposed the request during public comment. Michael Welty said the new house would be "literally in our backyard," and that the loss of privacy and the rural character that drew him to Carpenter Road would be harmed. Larry Ramsey raised concerns that a new building could be within 7 feet of his house and warned about increased stormwater runoff where there are currently no storm sewers. Craig Wales and Russ Funk also told the commission they valued the area’s rural feel and opposed further subdivision.

Commission discussion focused on lot history, fire access, engineering review of building permits and stormwater, and whether the driveway could be brought into compliance with a one-foot setback from the property line. Staff clarified that the present vote addressed only the variance for frontage; subdivision without plat and building-permit reviews would be handled administratively if the variance were approved. Staff also said engineering would review future building permits for stormwater and access details.

Several commissioners said they were troubled by approving a parcel with zero frontage and by single-point access. Although one commissioner argued a property owner has a right to use land subject to code, the motion to approve was moved by Mr. Seraniano and seconded by Mr. Shapeka and ultimately failed in roll call. The chair noted the applicant may consult the clerk about appeal procedures following the denial.

The commission’s vote left the parcel in its current zoning status; any future subdivision or building would require administrative review and potential additional approvals.

Next steps: the commission advised the applicant about appeal options and that engineering and code-enforcement reviews would govern any future permitting questions.