Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Reynoldsburg planning board affirms denial of Splash Laundry expansion at 6591 East Main Street
Summary
At its March 5, 2026 meeting the Reynoldsburg Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to deny an appeal seeking to expand Splash Laundry into an adjacent unit at 6591 East Main Street, concluding staff correctly applied the city's zoning code on nonconforming uses. The owner was advised he may appeal to city council.
The Reynoldsburg Planning and Zoning Board on March 5, 2026 voted to deny an appeal by the owner of Splash Laundry seeking to expand the laundromat into an adjacent unit at 6591 East Main Street.
Staff presented the background of the request and said it had denied the zoning‑certificate application on Jan. 30, 2026 because a self‑service laundromat is not a permitted land use in the BMD (Brace and Main District) and, under the city's legal nonconforming‑use rules, a preexisting nonconforming use may not be enlarged. "After a thorough review of the application, staff denied the application on 01/30/2026," staff told the board, citing the city's nonconforming‑use provisions.
The applicant's representative, Rick Murphy of Precise Remodeling and Contracting Ltd., said the laundromat had been in place at the site since 1964 and urged the board to let the business expand so it could add dryers and improve service. "Laundromat has been in that facility since 1964," Murphy said, describing the operation as well‑maintained and offering both self‑service and drop‑off laundry.
Tenant and business operator Daniel Duckworth told the board the operation is an "essential business" for customers and described the request as an interior expansion between adjacent units rather than a change in square footage. "A laundromat is actually an essential business," Duckworth said, and asked the board to support the expansion or allow him to take the matter to council if needed.
The city attorney reminded the board that its role was appellate: the board must determine whether the planning and zoning administrator properly applied the code to this application. "If you find that the planning and zoning administrator properly applied the code to this situation, you would affirm that decision. If you find that they did not, then you would reverse it," the city attorney said.
Staff also clarified timing and code versions: the zoning‑certificate application was submitted on Jan. 7, 2026 and the city's updated zoning code took effect Jan. 15, 2026; staff said it reviewed the application under the prior code's legal nonconforming‑use language because the application was submitted before the new code's effective date.
After discussion, Chair First moved to deny the appeal; the motion was seconded and the board called the roll. The board recorded affirmative votes to deny the appeal from all members polled (Breusch, Barnhart, Ward, Connolly, Benner, First), thereby affirming staff's denial of the zoning‑certificate application. The board noted the applicant retains the right to appeal the board's decision to city council within the code‑specified time frame.
The meeting adjourned at 6:28 p.m.
