Reynoldsburg council overturns planning board, grants variance for East Livingston Avenue storefront

Reynoldsburg City Council on April 28, 2025 voted 7-0 to reverse a March decision by the Planning & Zoning Board and grant a variance for property at 6008–6014 East Livingston Avenue, allowing a reduced two‑way drive aisle so a grocery tenant can occupy a formerly bar‑occupied storefront.

The vote reverses the March 20, 2025 Planning & Zoning Board action, which had recorded a 3–2 majority in favor of the variance but failed to meet the board’s seven‑member majority requirement. Councilmember Salvati moved to reverse the board’s denial, Councilmember Towne seconded, and the motion passed by roll call: Hill, Cotner, Baker, Towns, Salvati, Towne and President Pro Tem Pacquero voting aye.

The variance request sought a reduction from the zoning code requirement for a 22‑foot‑wide two‑way drive aisle; the applicant’s attorney described the requested reduction as a 6‑foot, 2‑inch decrease from that standard. The property owner’s representatives said the building has 17 parking spaces up front while the current code requires 24 spaces after a change of use; the tenant at issue is a small grocery store that the applicant said is an expressly allowed conditional use in the Innovation District.

John Gleeson, attorney for the property owner, told council the change of use triggered new parking and drive‑aisle requirements and argued the owner had met the variance factors in section 1109.11(d) of the city zoning code. Gleeson said both the fire department and public service staff reviewed site plans and expressed no operational concerns about the proposed drive aisle, and he distributed photos and emails to council showing the existing site layout.

Owner Aidan Najari told council he had invested to convert the space to a grocery and said he declined offers to re‑rent the unit as a bar after earlier nuisance problems at the site. “Do not penalize me because I did the right thing,” Najari said.

Council members questioned operational controls if the back parking and drive aisle were limited. Councilmember Salvati asked whether the rear spaces could be restricted to employees; attorney Gleeson said the owner would accept that restriction if council wished. Other council members cautioned that enforcing an employees‑only condition would be a business decision for the property owner rather than something the city would likely police.

Council discussion also referenced the board minutes and staff report. City staff had recommended denial on the basis that two variance factors were not clearly addressed, while the applicant and two planning board members disagreed and said past drive‑aisle variances had been granted in other parts of the city.

The motion reversed the Planning & Zoning Board’s effective denial and granted the requested variance; council recorded the reversal and closed the appeal.

Votes at a glance: the motion to reverse the planning board’s denial (application 2024‑0770) was made by Councilmember Salvati, seconded by Councilmember Towne, and approved by roll call 7–0.

The case will return to city staff for any ministerial follow‑up needed to issue permits and occupancy approvals under the revised drive‑aisle arrangement.