Canal Winchester commission rejects appeal seeking to allow carwash at Greengate outlot

The Canal Winchester Planning and Zoning Commission on April 13 declined to overturn a staff determination that a standalone carwash is a prohibited use on an outlot in the Greengate Planned Commercial District.

Michael Friedman, an attorney for property owner Shrimangeshi, LLC and applicant Express Wash Concepts, told the commission that the Greengates 2001 zoning text treats carwashes as a conditionally permitted use in the Planned Commercial District and that nothing in the municipal code gives the Zoning Administrator authority to deny a final development plan. Friedman argued that the 2012 Violet Pointe Overlay District should not be read to amend the Greengates text and quoted the overlay’s language on applicability: "requirements and standards of the Violet Pointe Overlay District shall supersede other applicable sections of this zoning code in instances which similar requirements and standards conflict." He also said any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the property owner under Ohio law.

City staff and the Canal Winchester Law Director disagreed. Staff presented a hierarchy chart and a memorandum from the time the Kroger preliminary development plan was reviewed, saying the Violet Pointe Overlay District—amended in 2012—created a prohibited-use list that applies to the parcel and that the applicant’s final development plan conflicted with Chapter 1175. The Law Director said he reviewed the materials and agreed with staff that the overlay’s prohibited-use list applies, though he advised the commission on procedural limits and how to frame a motion.

Craig Van Bremen of Express Wash Concepts and the applicant’s consultants said they had performed due diligence and proceeded under the belief the use was by-right; staff responded that the formal application filed in February 2026 prompted the denial and that staff has consistently maintained carwashes are a prohibited use on the parcel.

After closing the appeal hearing, commissioners voted on a motion to grant the appeal. The motion failed 3–2 (No: Eileen Goodin, Deborah McDonnell and Steve Palsgrove; Yes: Joe Donahue and Brad Richey), leaving the Zoning Administrator’s prohibition in place. The denial means the applicant would need to pursue other avenues—such as a text amendment or rezone—if it seeks to permit the use on that lot.

The commission did not make a separate finding on whether the Zoning Administrator has general authority to deny a final development plan; the Law Director had recommended not addressing that threshold question at this meeting.